Re: SCSI Host Adapter (+ Re: 2 CPU servers)
On Tue, Sep 09, 1997 at 09:37:27PM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: > > "F" == F Potorti writes: > > F> I am resending this, this time to the mailing list. I suspect > F> that the list-group gateway is not bidirectional, is that true? > > F> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Noxon) writes: > > F> If you think going buslogic, the following are very recommended > F> readings: http://www.dandelion.com/Linux/Quantum.html > F> http://www.dandelion.com/Linux/BusLogic.html > > I noticed that there is not a Debian GNU/Linux rescue disk set > available on that page. Shouldn't that be remedied? Yes, it should be. Actually, I think there should be a link to our current disk sets, and we should be sure these have FlashPoint support. Right now I don't think they do. I'll try to verify this later. Thanks, Jeff -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: SCSI Host Adapter (+ Re: 2 CPU servers)
> "F" == F Potorti writes: F> I am resending this, this time to the mailing list. I suspect F> that the list-group gateway is not bidirectional, is that true? F> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Noxon) writes: F> If you think going buslogic, the following are very recommended F> readings: http://www.dandelion.com/Linux/Quantum.html F> http://www.dandelion.com/Linux/BusLogic.html I noticed that there is not a Debian GNU/Linux rescue disk set available on that page. Shouldn't that be remedied? -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) http://www.inetarena.com/~karlheg Portland, OR USA Debian GNU 1.3.1+hamm Linux pre-2.0.31-9+select AMD K5 PR-133 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: SCSI Host Adapter (+ Re: 2 CPU servers)
I am resending this, this time to the mailing list. I suspect that the list-group gateway is not bidirectional, is that true? [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Noxon) writes: Note that the non-CPU FlashPoint models are the only ones available with twin-bus configurations. BusLogic is marketing these at the server segment. If the dedicated CPU was a big performance win, I don't think they would do that. Everyone seems to think that buslogic BT-948 or BT-958 is the best choice for Linux (apart from DPT cards). I asked Leonard Zubkoff and he told me that the flashpoint cards are slightly faster than the multimaster series, except for very high disk loads and high interrupt latency, but normally flashpoint is okay. What I said in another previous post of mine that I think got lost, is that even though the latest buslogic driver by Zubkoff supports the flashpoint series, Debian 1.3.1 still includes only support for the multimaster. This means, for example, that you cannot install debian 1.3.1 from scratch on a box with only a flashpoint board (and non EIDE disk, for example). If you think going buslogic, the following are very recommended readings: http://www.dandelion.com/Linux/Quantum.html http://www.dandelion.com/Linux/BusLogic.html If you have any other questions about the BusLogic SCSI adapters, I suggest reading "drivers/scsi/README.BusLogic" in the kernel source tree. And check out the web page listed there, as well as http://www.buslogic.com. Also, the SCSI-HOWTO and README.Buslogic in debian 1.3.1 are outdated with respect to the info in the references I gave above. Beware. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: SCSI Host Adapter (+ Re: 2 CPU servers)
THANK YOU SO MUCH for all infos, I won't miss the doc and WEB site you suggested (I also think they will deal with possible/real transfer rates, of course related to the kind of hard disk or other device you connect to the card). Cheers. Nicola Bernardelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Please use <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for messages from any kind of robot, such as mailing lists. From that address no autoresponse messages will return even when I'm not at home. --- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: SCSI Host Adapter (+ Re: 2 CPU servers)
Nicola Bernardelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was mention of a specific model, Buslogic BT-948: is it such a > "low-end" card or one with that CPU onboard? The BT-948 and all other "MultiMaster" models have onboard CPUs. The 948 is BusLogic's equivalent to the Adaptec 2940U. The 958 compares to the 2940UW (Wide). The FlashPoint series of cards use the host CPU instead of a dedicated CPU. You can get the cheapest one (can't remember the model) for around $120 if you shop around. It also supports Ultra-20 transfers. I really like these cards, but I have not tried one with Linux. I know they work, but I don't know if you pay much of a performance penalty. I suspect the performance penalty is small: the CPU on the other cards is just a slow Intel 80186. With a fast machine, it's probably worth 0.5% more CPU utilization. Has anyone benchmarked the difference with Bonnie on identical systems and drives?? Note that the non-CPU FlashPoint models are the only ones available with twin-bus configurations. BusLogic is marketing these at the server segment. If the dedicated CPU was a big performance win, I don't think they would do that. > Better question: what do you think is a medium-high level BusLogic > card with good price/performance ratio and - most important - well > performing (reliable and fast) with Debian GNU/Linux? I think if you can afford it, you should probably go with a MultiMaster model. Otherwise get the cheaper FlashPoint model -- unless you need two SCSI buses on one card. All of them will be reliable, while the MultiMaster has a theoretical edge on speed. > And what about 2 CPU usage? I read on this list recently that the > kernel is getting mature for Linux with such motherboards: Linux 2.2 will be a lot better, but 2.0 with the right patches seems to work acceptably well. It's probably not a good fit for most people at this point. If you have any other questions about the BusLogic SCSI adapters, I suggest reading "drivers/scsi/README.BusLogic" in the kernel source tree. And check out the web page listed there, as well as http://www.buslogic.com. Thanks, Jeff -- Make it idiot-proof, and someone will breed a better idiot. PGP mail welcome! Visit http://www.planetfall.com/pgp.html for my PGP key. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: SCSI Host Adapter (+ Re: 2 CPU servers)
BusLogic supports free software and is well supported under Linux? Very well. Probably I'll have one customer of mine buy new machines very soon, they will buy what I say. (Maybe me too - going to buy a new harddisk - will replace my Adaptec 2940 with a BusLogic instead of a 2940UW or 3940W or anything else from Adaptec.) > > Even the "low-end" BusLogic cards are pretty good. They just lack an > > onboard > > CPU to process SCSI requests. But thanks to BusLogic, the SCSI manager code > > was GPL'd and is integrated into the Linux driver. There was mention of a specific model, Buslogic BT-948: is it such a "low-end" card or one with that CPU onboard? Better question: what do you think is a medium-high level BusLogic card with good price/performance ratio and - most important - well performing (reliable and fast) with Debian GNU/Linux? And what about 2 CPU usage? I read on this list recently that the kernel is getting mature for Linux with such motherboards: > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:50:02 -0700 > From: Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: 2 CPU servers > > [snip] > 2.0.31-pre7 seems to be working ok (no deadlocks). > 2.0.30 or 2.0.29 with the deadlock-patch 6 works fine too. > [snip] Nicola Bernardelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Please use <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for messages from any kind of robot, such as mailing lists. From that address no autoresponse messages will return even when I'm not at home. --- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
