On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:35:01 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:54:46 GMT, ah wrote:
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 . . . ?
With my old card yes. But the bottleneck was with the PCI slot it was in, not the IDE part.
Have you made an real-life comparison?
Yes or no.
Stop wriggling!
--
ah
|