> > They will go on a machine with 3 200m ide drives, which will be a poor-man's > > server. My current thinking is to mount / on the first controller, and > > use the other pair as /usr on the second interface. /usr will be NFS > > exported. Or would I be better off putting the two /usr drives on > > separate controllers? > > I'd think it was better to mount them across separate controllers. With > seperate control and data lines, the kernel can issue two simultaneous > requests and get data from both at the same time. My understanding with > IDE (and EIDE) is that a single controller can only access a single > drive at a time and must wait for that request to finish before issuing > another.
yes; that's the hitch with ide. On the other hand, we don't have spare scsis lying around :) The reason i'm hesitating to put them on separate controllers is that / is also on the first controller. Everything that gets nfs exported will come off /usr, and my concern is that massive hits to the portion that was slaved could leave / unaccesable to the host. > SCSI is a more sophisticated in that it allows a request to be issued > and then the bus to idle (for more requests or other data) until the > drive finishes processing the request and can blast back the data. > This is why SCSI is much better than EIDE when dealing with more than one > drive. (At least, this is my understanding... Somebody please correct > me if I'm wrong.) yes; exactly. I just wish we had scsis. Of coure, if this whole thing works, we may be able to get one . . . rick -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
