Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's

From: Matthias Urlichs (smurf@noris.de)
Date: Fri Mar 09 2001 - 01:59:08 EST

Next message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Linux 2.4.2ac12 (vt82c686 info)"
Previous message: Mike Galbraith: "Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?"
Next in thread: Jens Axboe: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Reply: Jens Axboe: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,

Matthias Urlichs:
> On Wed, Mar 07 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > SCSI certainly lets us do both of these operations independently. IDE
> > has the sync/flush command afaik, but I'm not sure whether the IDE
> > tagged command stuff has the equivalent of SCSI's ordered tag bits.
> > Andre?
>
> IDE has no concept of ordered tags...
>
But most disks these days support IDE-SCSI, and SCSI does have ordered
tags, so...

Has anybody done speed comparisons between "native" IDE and IDE-SCSI?

-- 
Matthias Urlichs     |     noris network AG     |     http://smurf.noris.de/
-- 
Success is something I will dress for when I get there, and not until.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Linux 2.4.2ac12 (vt82c686 info)"
Previous message: Mike Galbraith: "Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?"
Next in thread: Jens Axboe: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Reply: Jens Axboe: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 15 2001 - 21:00:09 EST