Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!xstor!iverson
From: iverson@xstor.UUCP (Tim Iverson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: SCSI Board Info Request
Message-ID: <212@xstor.UUCP>
Date: 15 Oct 90 18:51:57 GMT
References: <9254@orca.wv.tek.com> <1990Oct07.173315.6532@nstar.uucp> <209@xstor.UUCP> <1990Oct13.231715.1548@nstar.uucp>
Reply-To: iverson@xstor.UUCP (Tim Iverson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Storage Dimensions, Inc.
Lines: 17

In article <1990Oct13.231715.1548@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes:
>I had a seagate ST01 here, and it coretested at 700kb/sec - while the
>1542 always comes it about 960kb/sec (these values are of course with
>no cache) under PC-DOS 3.3

Well, you've chosen the slowest, most buggy of the dumb boards to compare
it to; why don't you try something better (SDC800, Future Domain, etc.).  If
the 1542 turns in 960kb/sec, then a good dumb board should yield 1.1MB/s.

BTW - I use a 1542B myself, but then I switch between DOS and Unix often, so
the extra cost of the board is justified.

> Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA 
> {larry@nstar, uunet!sco!romed!nstar!larry, nstar!larry@ndmath.math.nd.edu}

- Tim Iverson
  uunet!xstor!iverson