Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!eutrc3!eutws1!wsinpdb
From: wsinpdb@eutws1.win.tue.nl (Paul de Bra)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: What's new on adaptex
Message-ID: <1468@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl>
Date: 7 Feb 90 09:35:31 GMT
References: <21800001@adaptex> <1458@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl> <25c97303:579.6comp.unix.xenix;1@nstar.UUCP> <1990Feb5.220150.374@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Sender: news@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 19

In article <1990Feb5.220150.374@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>...
>Then add in the fact that you can get a $820 150MB tape backup for SCSI,
>versus almost $1300 for the >same< drive in a "board + drive" combination!
>Try backing up the system with both combinations -- you'll find the SCSI
>device machine is actually usable during the backup -- while the other
>system is crawling!

My experience is quite the opposite, which only means that it's not a
SCSI versus non-SCSI problem. On several Suns, not only old ones like the
3/160 but also the 386i/150 and /250 the system is crawling when you use
the tape drive, and with an exabyte it's even worse. On my 386 box
(with AT&T Unix, not Xenix) I have yet to notice any performance drop
when I'm reading or writing the tape. This is using an Everex controller
and a Wangtek drive. I guess it's a matter of writing efficient device
drivers, not of chosing SCSI or not.

Paul.
(debra@research.att.com)