It appears to the untrained eye, that you guys may be comparing apples to
oranges and therefore are both correct, in a way. It seems like most of Chris's
usage of disks comes in a desktop environment while most of the Dustin's
usage comes from the heavily loaded servers.
In a desktop environment where the biggest bottleneck is a human operator
and the disks most of the time sit around waiting for something to do Chris is
correct in saying that the performance difference between IDE and SCSI is
not that enormous. It is there, it simply may not be worth the extra trouble and
expense.
However, when you start, talking about a medium to heavy loaded server then
the SCSI reliability, expandability and speed are a real advantage. In fact I
would be willing to go so far as to say SCSI is the only way to go if you are
planning to build a medium to heavy loaded server.
I also hope this answers the question of the original poster, which sort of got
lost here somewhere. :-)
Rudy
On 28 Apr 99, at 2:43, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> dustin sallings wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure where you get 50/50. I've not met anyone who
> > recommended IDE disks over SCSI disks unless the only factor was price,
>
> No, I'm saying that if you've only got 1 or 2 disks, opinion seems
> divided over whether the difference in performance is enough to be
> concerned about.
>
> > // Have you done such tests? If so, what exactly were the results?
> >
> > I don't need to. I've used both in real world environments. I
> > know just enough about the hardware to explain why IDE has always been
> > slower than SCSI in my environments.
>
> Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
>
>