Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccicpg!leo!harald
From: harald@leo.UUCP ( Harald Milne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: A2090 controller
Message-ID: <2911@leo.UUCP>
Date: 30 Mar 88 10:30:41 GMT
Organization: CCI CPD (Advanced Development), Irvine CA
Lines: 44


	Another opinion.

	Owning an A1000 with a Supra Drive 20meg SCSI drive and a
A2000 with A2090 controller and Seagate 251 drive, I feel somewhat 
qualified to make the following statements.

	For reasons I can't understand, (and I do understand the reasons
for SCSI speed improvements) the A2090 seems do better. My A2000 has
a very snappy response compared to the A1000 with SCSI. With all things
being equal (like number of top level directories, diskbuffers, etc)
and things being unequal (SCSI track buffering, average access times)
this is really strange.

	Unfortunately, there are no current disk benchmark statistics for
these configurations to back up what I feel is so.

	I don't have any notion of A2090 SCSI performance, so I can't even
even talk about this, but considering the supposed performance advantages
of SCSI against the A2090 controller with a slow access (40ms) 251 drive,
I'll be dammed if the A2090 doesn't kick ass so to speak. As if the A2090
provides SCSI performanc with an ordinary ST506. (Quite possible)

	I don't know, and I don't have hard numbers, but the A2090 really
kicks.

	It makes deciding to use SCSI or ST506 a monetary decision.

	Anybody have the same experience?

	I just happened to go with the ST251 drive for monetary reasons.

	I was really suprised to see a drive twice as slow without track
buffering run so fast.

	Needless to say, I'm impressed with the A2090 controller in this
configuration.

	Any comments?

-- 
Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG)
      Irvine, CA (RISCy business!) 
UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!leo!harald