On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:01:16 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 04:19:49 GMT, ah wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:38:37 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:37:25 GMT, ah wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:12:23 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:25:37 GMT, ah wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:01:42 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:47:32 GMT, ah wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:11:58 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:53:02 GMT, ah wrote:

Hold that wallet a bit until you're su

most "slowness" is because of the storage-bus bottleneck.

You could have 5 terabytes of storage accessible by a
liquid-nitrogen-cooled 14CPU system, but still get the
responsiveness of a 80386.

Of course, XP is a bottleneck in, and of, itself.

I removed the storage bottleneck. Four 250MB 7200rpm drives
connected to a £250 3ware 66MHz/64bit PCI RAID card. The
processors can't write data that fast!

Besides I have 2GB of RAM, soon to be 3GB.

Try SCSI 320.

I don't have THAT many credit cards. How much for a terrabyte of SCSI
disks?

Probably about £4,000

It's a stupid price. And people keep telling me it ain't a lot better
than IDE. It most definitely is not worth the price. You'd be better
getting more of the IDE stuiff for the same price, and ending up with a
higher capacity, and more drives to put on a bigger raid.

I'm making the switch when I can . . . it's the only bottleneck I know.

A real ****er, if you ask me.

Switching TO scsi?

Correct.

Why bother? It's not all it's hyped up to be. Just get more IDE.

S'posed to be more responsive, and imbued with greater longevity....
--
ah