dual pentia/SCSI & Linux

[Eric]

The drive I am purchasing is purported to be this: IBM DDRS-39130D DC1B
(9.14 GB).  I can't find much info on it at all.  I wonder if this is the
same or similar drive you had, Kevin, as it is an IBM?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Kevin
> Buettner
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 1:35 AM
> To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: Re: dual pentia/SCSI & Linux
>
>
> On Sep 11,  9:23pm, John (EBo) David wrote:
>
> > > I thinking of buying a dual pentium 3 500 w/SCSI drive.  When
> things settle
> > > down a bit (I just barely managed to pull myself away from
> CNN to type this
> > > message) could someone tell about their experience with Linux
> on a dual
> > > pentium w/SCSI?  Will my experience with this type of system be any
> > > different that a single pentium 3 and an IDE drive?  Any precautions I
> > > should take or questions I should ask?  Is this purely a
> Windows machine, or
> > > will Linux be no prob?
> >
> > that is basically the clone of the machine I use all the time
> > (Linux/NT/W2000).  There is some wierd things with getting the CD-RW
> > working, but I think the rewer kernals take care of most of the gotcha's
> >
> > Typically, SCSI will run faster and easier than IDE.  IDE's you
> > typically only get two devices/channel, while on scsi you get 7 on the
> > old and 15 on the newer SCSI busses.  You want to make sure that the
> > bios will support your SCSI's though (there was an oddity with mine, but
> > it was immediately solved with a patch to the bios).
>
> I have a dual 550MHz PIII system w/ SCSI.  It *used* to have a SCSI
> drive in it.
>
> A short history is as follows:  I purchased the box with an 18GB
> 7200RPM SCSI drive.  Later, I added two cheap 5400RPM 45GB IDE drives
> and a Promise Ultra-66 IDE controller which I put into a (software)
> RAID-1 configuration.  Benchmarking the SCSI drive and the IDE drives
> showed that the SCSI drive was *substantially* slower (even with the
> overhead of software RAID-1 for the IDE drives).  Earlier this summer,
> one of the IDE drives failed.  (I didn't lose anything because this
> drive was mirrored.)  While diagnosing the problem, I noticed that the
> SCSI drive was making an aweful whining noise when it first started
> up, so I decided to replace all of the drives in the box with two 60GB
> IBM DeskStars.  (It was making me nervous to have my home directories
> on an unmirrored drive.) The IBM DeskStars are IDE drives and so far
> they're performing fine.  I feel much better knowing that all of the
> partitions on this machine are now mirrored.
>
> Anyway...  As noted above, my benchmarks showed that a cheap,
> supposedly less capable IDE drive was faster than the SCSI drive.  I
> think there are still applications where SCSI is king, but it costs a
> lot and I just can't see spending the extra money when you only plan
> to have one or two drives in the box.
>
> The original poster (Eric) may want to (re)read some of my past posts
> regarding performance of SCSI vs IDE:
>
> http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/2000-Octobe
r/006665.html
http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/2000-October/006718.h
tml
http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/2001-March/010647.htm
l

Kevin
________________________________________________
See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post
to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.

PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss