Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!PAN.SSEC.HONEYWELL.COM!thompson
From: thompson@PAN.SSEC.HONEYWELL.COM (John Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: re: Internal-external SCSI disks
Message-ID: <9106101750.AA03187@pan.ssec.honeywell.com>
Date: 10 Jun 91 17:50:15 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29


> We need to purchase a new file server to expand storage on our 
> network of 40 workstations.  ...  The 425t with 
> 1.3 GB of external storage and the 425s with 1.3 GB of internal 
> storage are two possibilities.  The first option is $7,000 (list) 
> less expensive than the latter.  Does the internal disk have
> any clear advantages in terms of file access time or other 
> characteristics pertinent to how the machine will function as 
> a file server?  In other words, is there any good reason to 
> spend the additional money?   
I don't know the SCSI speeds between internal and external buses
on the 400 series, but I can only see three reasons for getting a
425s rather than a 425t --
o   You need the fast graphics from the Personal Visualization System.  This
    may actually be a moot (mooter?) point with the new CRX displays.
o   You need the [E]ISA-bus for peripherals.
o   You need to hang an ungodly amount of disk space off a single-point-of-
    failure node.  You can put about 9 GB of disk space on a 425t node, and
    with extran controllers, you can put about 27GB on a 425s node.  IMHO,
    anyone who hangs more than 10GB on a node is asking for failures.

-- jt --
John Thompson
Honeywell, SSEC
Plymouth, MN  55441
thompson@pan.ssec.honeywell.com

When in danger, when in doubt --
run in circles, scream and shout.