home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!sgi!classic.asd.sgi.com!jeremy
- From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
- Subject: Re: SMD vs. SCSI
- Message-ID: <p3dtpsk@sgi.sgi.com>
- Sender: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com
- Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Mountain View, CA
- References: <1349@ceylon.gte.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:05:36 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <1349@ceylon.gte.com>, seb3@harvey.gte.com (Steve Belczyk) writes:
- > Hi!
- >
- > For the last four months we have been having hardware problems with
- > the four SMD drives on our 4D/380S. The drives, controller, and cables
- > have been replaced, but the problems keep coming back.
- >
- > Field Service has offered to replace the four SMD drives with four SCSI
- > drives of the same size. We are concerned about the performance of the
- > SCSI drives. Can we expect to get the same speeds from the SCSI drives
- > that we get from the SMD drives? Can we expect the SCSI drives to be
- > more reliable?
- >
- > Thank you very much.
- >
- > - steve belczyk seb3@gte.com
-
- If you have an IO2, SCSI will probably be worse. If you have an
- IO3, SCSI will probably be better. The max transfer rate of a
- single drive is somewhat less with the SCSI 1.2 5.25" than with
- the SMD, but the total SCSI bus rate is greater, so if you use
- multiple drives, you'll be better off. Also, the SCSI bus is
- only busy while transferring data (and during overhead, but that
- is relatively small), while SMD is busy during latency (when
- the controller is waiting for your sector to come up). So with
- 4 drives on one controller, you can get more small, random I/O
- per second on SCSI than on SMD.
-
- The SCSI will probably be more reliable, also.
-
- jeremy
-
-