> itself is a bad thing, particularly given the amount of CPU overhead that > IDE drives demand while attached to the controller (orders of magnitude > higher than a good SCSI controller) - the more overhead we can hand off to I know this is just a troll by a scsi-believer, but I'm biting anyway. on current machines and disks, ide costs a few % CPU, depending on which CPU, disk, kernel, the sustained bandwidth, etc. I've measured this using the now-trendy method of noticing how much the IO costs a separate, CPU-bound benchmark: load = 1 - (unloadedPerf / loadedPerf). my cheesy duron/600 desktop typically shows ~2% actual cost when running bonnie's block IO tests. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Andre Hedrick
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Mike Black
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jeremy Hansen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fs... Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fs... Jeremy Hansen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Linus Torvalds
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's David Balazic
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Gregory Maxwell
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Mark Hahn
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's David Balazic
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fs... Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Jens Axboe