home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / comp / os / msdos / misc / 7228 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-28  |  1.2 KB
  1. Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.misc:7228 comp.os.linux:25687 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:37353
  2. Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
  3. From: prh@essence.demon.co.uk ("Peter R. Humphrey")
  4. Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!gatech!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!demon!essence.demon.co.uk!prh
  5. Subject: Re: SCSI performance / Adaptec vs Seagate
  6. Reply-To: prh@essence.demon.co.uk
  7. References: <C1FwFo.G63@jti.com>
  8. Distribution: world
  9. Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.misc
  10. X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.30 $
  11. Organization: Organization?  What organization?
  12. Lines: 17
  13. Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:31:58 +0000
  14. Message-ID: <728112718snx@essence.demon.co.uk>
  15. Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
  16.  
  17. In article <C1FwFo.G63@jti.com> richb@jti.com (Richard Braun) writes:
  18.  
  19. >Using a simplistic disk performance test program provided by a drive
  20. >manufacturer, I came up with the following surprising result:
  21. >
  22. >    The 8-bit Seagate ST02 is nearly 3 times faster than the
  23. >    16-bit bus-mastering Adaptec 1542A.
  24. >
  25. >Why might this be?
  26.  
  27. Let me guess - the test program was published by Seagate?
  28.  
  29. -- 
  30. Rgds
  31.  
  32. Peter Humphrey  |  prh@essence.demon.co.uk         | Voice 0932-343158
  33. Woking, UK.     |  unionjack@cix.compulink.co.uk   | Data  0932-353948
  34.