Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!funic!santra!vipunen.hut.fi!mstr
From: mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: IDE drives: good or evil?
Message-ID: <1991Apr1.091549.7873@santra.uucp>
Date: 1 Apr 91 09:15:49 GMT
References: <1991Mar25.165950.14531@santra.uucp> <1991Mar28.042102.14723@jwt.UUCP> <6300@bwdls58.bnr.ca>
Sender: news@santra.uucp (Cnews - USENET news system)
Reply-To: mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Lines: 19


I can't see why a built-in cache is worse than no cache??
The only problem I have heard of here is that benchmarks
give too good ratings. You can use a software cache to
improve the cache hit ratin if you want.

The only good way to compare different harddisks is to run you
application and measure the time on each harddrive.  The one that is
fastest is the fastest if it has a built-in cache or not.

At this time I'm running a 33MHz 386 with 4M RAM, 70M and 105M IDE HDs
and 1.2M,1.44 and 360k floppies, and I'm realy satisfied with my HDs.
If you want to use ST-506 drives, please do, but IDE is an enchanged
ST-506. You might hear someone call a ST-506 drive as a MFM or RLL
drive, but thats only the datastorage. Most IDE drives are RLL drives.


Markus Strand
mstr@vipunen.hut.fi