Looks interesting. Still, if performance is preferred over capacity or cost, SCSI drives still win because of their much lower access times in comparison to IDE drives.
Why would anyone make such a device? It doens't seem like there's a point to me. And the benchmarks show that's there's almost no benefit and CPU usage actually goes up not down with this device.
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Why would anyone make such a device? It doens't seem like there's a point to me. And the benchmarks show that's there's almost no benefit and CPU usage actually goes up not down with this device.
With each new generation of drives, the drive manufacturers pull new aces from their sleeves: the latest top models are quicker, quieter and bigger than ever before. There are already 200 GB drives - 300 GB will not be long in coming. But there are no drives of this size for the SCSI interface, which is the standard in the server market.
A similar capacity SCSI drive, say in the 120-200gb range, would be way too expensive than a similar IDE drive even if you factor in the cost of these adapters. IDE drives are also getting faster, with 8mb cache (although still behind 15k SCSI barn-burners). You can attach 15 devices to a wide SCSI channel so 15 200gb drives is a lot of cheap storage.
Let's see... 15 x 200GB drives on one channel = Ummmm 3 Terabytes............................................................
. Sorry there, I fainted with my finger on the dot!
.bh.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.