SCSI pros & cons

From: Iggy Drougge <>
Date: Fri Oct 12 14:22:52 2001

Carlos Murillo skrev:

>At 02:12 PM 10/12/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>I see that BIOS setup utility on the cards as a sympthom of the low level of
>>integration. The cards behave as an alien entity in the computer.

>Which is exactly the point :-) . SCSI cards, unlike IDE subsystems,
>are supposed to work by themselves and ease the burden
>on the processor. This is considered a "good thing".

Something which doesn't necessarily have to shine through in the user/OS
interface. In this case, it's not due to the inner workings of SCSI, but
rather the PC philosophy.

>Like many others, I've not had problems with the Adaptec 2940 series.

We sold ours. It worked, but was wasted on our SCSI setup after our last SCSI
drive died.

>I also like a CMD card that I have somewhere; it has a 72 pin SIMM
>slot to increase the cache; at one point I had a 64MB SIMM there and
>it helped the web server a lot.

IBM had two 30-pin slots on their MCA SCSI cards.

I like my Fastlane Z3 card. It's about the fastest Zorro3 SCSI card one might
get, and it's got sixteen 30-pin SIMM slots for system memory expansion as
well. =)

>Do note that I tend to use HP, Sun, DEC or IBM scsi cables.
>Mac cables have given me trouble before.

I've not had much problem with cables. If a cable doesn't work, it's quite
obvious, and I replace it.
My DECstation runs with an HP cable now, and it works fine. A good testament
to the marriage between the two companies. =)

En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build
bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce
bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning.
-- Rick Cook, Mission Manager, NASA Mars Pathfinder Project
Received on Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:22:52 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:18 BST