Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcuhb!hpindda!kmont
From: kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Seagates under Unix???  (or best pick)
Message-ID: <40970034@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 90 01:08:20 GMT
References: <40970028@hpindda.HP.COM>
Organization: Bill and Dave's
Lines: 21

/ hpindda:comp.sys.ibm.pc / emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) /  5:42 am  Jan 18, 1990 /
> maintaining around 2.5Mbyte/sec average. I didn't see many of the Connors,

not bad performance- what controller were you using?

> than the above trio. You'll certainly appreciate the speed of those
> SCSI drives, I think they all had decent on-board caches.
> BTW, my favourite dealer told me that the WD1007 card was incompatible

the latest controller the distributor is pushing is the Chicony 104 SCSI
controller (looks like a ST506/412 to the OS).  He was previously backing
the WD-AT240xo controller, but said the Chicony had supposedly higher
reliability and comes with a serial/parallel port.

Does anyone know anything about the Chicony controllers?    What is the
REAL transfer rate from disk--(SCSI)-->controller--(ST506-like interface)->
memory like for these beasts?  Does emulating the ST506 really slow things 
down?  As I understand it, it limits the controller to 2 SCSI devices due
to this emulation business....

						kev