Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!killer!texbell!merch!cpe!tif
From: tif@cpe.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: ESDI vs SCSI
Message-ID: <141100018@cpe>
Date: 15 Apr 89 14:37:00 GMT
References: <6628@mrspoc.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:mrspoc.UUCP:6628:cpe:141100018:000:1122
Nf-From: cpe.UUCP!tif    Apr 15 09:37:00 1989


Written 11:19 am  Apr 14, 1989 by biar.UUCP!jhood in cpe:comp.unix.xenix
>Frankly, I don't see much difference between the Tandy 4000 with
>ST-506 drives and Microport at home and the Tandy 4000 with the 80 meg
>SCSI subsystem and Tandy-oid Xenix at work.  (True, it's a comparison
>with a few too many variables in it.)  I'll allow that the difference
>might be greater under a multitasking, multiuser sort of load, but
>from a single-user perspective, there's little difference between the
>two.

If your configuration can pull it off there is one way that really
makes the SCSI shine.  All you have to do is install two SCSI drives
and then try to balance the usage between the two drives.  That way
processes don't get bogged down because of other processes' I/O.
One interesting point was a benchmark we ran that performed lots of
work in two directories.  The increase in performance by putting
these directories on two seperate SCSI drives was very close to 100%.

It's becoming obvious that this is a religious issue.

			Paul Chamberlain
			Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp.
			{killer | texbell}!cpe!tif