"Shaun Thomas" <sthomas@townnews.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0109101709380.1809-100000@hamster.lee.net...
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Steve Wolfe wrote:
>
> > So, why did I say that I don't use IDE for high-performance machines?
> > IDE has limitations.
>
> Mainly, the fact that IDE controllers require far more CPU involvement
> than any SCSI controller, especially on a saturated bus. A good SCSI
> controller can stay below 2% under almost any circumstance. A bad IDE one
> can go above 20%. I don't think I should have to say any more. ^_^
Your example is not very convincing. You want to compare a good SCSI
controller with a bad IDE one? That's not what one would call equitable.
Consider: let's get an antique 50 pin adaptec SCSI controller, and compare
it to a 3ware escalade running RAID 0 over 4 drives. The IDE one is faster!
It saturates the PCI bus! The SCSI controller pokes along at 10 MB/s.
Doesn't prove anything.
The business about CPU utilization did, in fact, use do be an issue, but
hasn't been since the introduction of UltraDMA IDE controllers, which
was a few years ago. (Admittedly, if you've been running WinNT 4 all
this time, you haven't been able to take advantage of it.)
Marshall