dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) (05/13/91)
From article <1991Feb15.201920.13743@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>, by lairdt@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Tom Laird): > First of all I'd get a different chassis. The smaller chassis run hotter > and are a big pain to upgrade at any point - not enough space. > I also would avoid an IDE drive, especially a Seagate. IDE drives are SLOW > and turn out about 500-600k per second throughput - a bad idea to hook up > such a slow drive to a fast system. I own a 20mhz 386sx with a 64k cache and have a western digital IDE drive. It is an 85 meg drive with an 18ms a.s.t. Norton 5.0 tells me that I get 752k per second throughput with it. This seems to work pretty well, or is this fast speed due to the cache? Are IDE hard drives reletively slower than other hard drives? -- Douglas Bell "... but that's not important, that's just numbers." dab6@po.cwru.edu Dr. Wu, Math Professor
coop4p33@bwdlh119.BNR.CA (coop4p33) (05/14/91)
IDE drives are great compared to old MFM or RLL drives, and are more than fast enough for single user non-multitasking operations. For doing serious UNIX work on a clone, a SCSI hard drive and controller would give better performance (assuming a DMA SCSI controller). -Ralph internet: coop4p33@bnr.ca phone:(613)763-8149 usual disclaimers apply