On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:21:14 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:17:02 GMT, ah wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:50:01 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:10:26 GMT, ah wrote:

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:

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,

The IDE raid card I bought has all the SCSI personalities built in.

Honda has a car with Farrari personality built-in, to . . . .

And honda make very good cars. Your point?

and imbued with greater longevity....

How does an interface make the spindle last longer?

SCSI is a dying breed. SATA or firewire or something, that's what you want.

Got it; still a heck of a neck on that bottle.

Bull****. I can get over half a GB per second on my RAID card. I've yet to see drives that need this.

Yet you earlier conceeded the bottleneck . . . ?
--
ah