Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: 386 Unix - Minimum HD Keywords: Hard Disk, Controller, ESDI, Unix, 386, RLL Message-ID: <1997@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Date: 10 Jan 90 19:11:51 GMT References: <1781@clyde.concordia.ca> Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 29 In article <1781@clyde.concordia.ca> victor@sherlock.CS.Concordia.CA (Victor Krawczuk) writes: | For people on a budget (like myself) who can only afford an RLL | and/or IDE type of HD, is the bottleneck effect caused by this type | of drive: | a) unnoticeable | b) a minor inconvenience (offset by $$$ savings) | c) irritating but one can live with it under certain | conditions | d) a pain in the butt | e) enough to take it out on the kids???? I have ESDI at work and RLL at home. When I had the Adaptek controller the performance of the RLL was not very good. By using caching in the kernel I could get by this, but then the system CPU time went up. Now I have the WD1006VSR2 at home, with hardware track buffering. Uses no CPU and is as fast (by all measurements I've made) as the ESDI. I am planning to go ESDI at home if I can determine that the Compuadd cached controller works well with Xenix. I am about at the limit of the cheap disks (ST4096's) and I am not able to add disk until I switch to something with higher density. I *think* I will run a 760MB drive and leave room for the future, but I might use a pair of 330s for performance and reliability and let the future take care of itself. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon