a cheap solution why don't you equip you PC's with FireWire cards? But ask
once again - i asked because i already have these SCSI controllers and
they are unused.
with firewire - it works fine, i know :) - fwip(4)
somebody about the limitations there (IMHO you can make some sort of bus
with firewire - it works fine, i know :) - fwip(4)
if talking about firewire, why on my system:
fwohci0: Texas Instruments TSB43AB23 mem
0xf5005000-0xf50057ff,0xf500-0xf5003fff irq 18 at
device 6.0 on pci5
fwohci0: OHCI version 1.10 (ROM=0)
fwohci0: No. of Isochronous channels is 4.
Perhaps on your motherboard, also possible they don't even make it farther
than the pins of the controller chip.
Lots of controllers have lots of ports that never get used.
-Patrick
On 31/03/2008, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
with firewire - it works fine, i know :) - fwip(4)
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 16:41 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
unmanaged switch will work much better :)
I'd agree with that 100%- do the bandwidth math (not to mention the ease
of setup): gigabit each way compared to a max of 320mb (I could be wrong
on the exact figures, but the gigabit
May I ask how that works? Everything I've read about scsi is that the
throughput determines the standard: so 320MB has a throughput of ~320MB.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi)
there is a bit (exactly 8 times) difference between megabit and megabyte
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 14:45 +0200, User Wojtek wrote:
May I ask how that works? Everything I've read about scsi is that the
throughput determines the standard: so 320MB has a throughput of ~320MB.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi)
there is a bit (exactly 8 times) difference between
unmanaged switch will work much better :)
I'd agree with that 100%- do the bandwidth math (not to mention the ease
of setup): gigabit each way compared to a max of 320mb (I could be wrong
on the exact figures, but the gigabit is still faster).
320MB is 2560Mb not 320Mb
160MB/s is above
On 3/29/08 1:17 PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote on SCSI network
they are all adaptec (ahc driver) controllers - manual says it can be
target as well as initiator
Others have been discussing the potential speed of such an
arrangement. I'm more concerned about SCSI bus addressing being
a problem
On 31.03.2008, at 21:53, Walt Pawley wrote:
On 3/29/08 1:17 PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote on SCSI network
they are all adaptec (ahc driver) controllers - manual says it can be
target as well as initiator
Others have been discussing the potential speed of such an
arrangement. I'm more
In the last episode (Mar 29), Wojciech Puchar said:
i have few Ultra160 SCSI controllers and two Ultra40, cables and few
machines that needs fast interconnect. i could use one gigabit card on each
machine+switch, but i already have it!
can i make external SCSI bus through all machines and
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 22:34 -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Mar 29), Wojciech Puchar said:
i have few Ultra160 SCSI controllers and two Ultra40, cables and few
machines that needs fast interconnect. i could use one gigabit card on each
machine+switch, but i already have it!
i have few Ultra160 SCSI controllers and two Ultra40, cables and few
machines that needs fast interconnect. i could use one gigabit card on each
machine+switch, but i already have it!
can i make external SCSI bus through all machines and use it to transmit
IP packets?
they are all adaptec
12 matches
Mail list logo
