Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!apple!oliveb!amiga!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Starboard SCSI board woes. (slow as christmas)
Message-ID: <7191@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jun 89 21:45:30 GMT
References: <19142@cup.portal.com> <19303@cup.portal.com> <[206.6]comp.amiga;1@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 32

In article <[206.6]comp.amiga;1@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Response 5 of 5 (206) by silver at cup.portal.com on Mon 12 Jun 89 05:40
>>[Jim B Howard]
>>My drive *WAS* low level formatted with a value of 2, and I am
>>using Amiga-Dos 1.3 and the FFS.  I still only get about 
>>65k per second.  I have tried interleave of 3, and it doesnt change
>>the speeds in any direction but down.
>
>That performance SUCKS.

	What do you expect using a absolute cheapest and simplest controller
that exists?

>I regularly get 650K/second on IBM clones (ATs) using a track cache
>controller.  What the hell is Commodore and these other manufacturer's doing
>wrong if they can't even beat an ST506 (slow as a turtle) interface?!

	A real controller (A2091/A590, Hardframe, GVP, even A2090) can do
at least 650K/sec READING FROM A FILE (not raw device speed).  With a good
SCSI disk, some of them can do >1Meg/sec from a file, >1.4Meg/sec raw.
This is without expensive track caches on the controller.  I suspect your
650K/sec is mostly for reading from the cache, not actually from the disk.
If you simply read a 5Meg file sequentially, what speed do you get?

>And I thought that Amigas were faster than IBM's.... guess not when it comes
>to disk performance.

	They are, especially when you look at normal PC controllers (most
can't do more than 200K/sec no matter what).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup