Hello group

I'm planning to upgrade my computer and have some questions re disk
drives:

I currently using SCSI Ultra-160 drives through an Adaptec 2940 PCI
controller.

It seems SATA easier to find and is less expensive per unit disk space.
Would SATA drives perform as well as the Ultra-160 SCSI drives?

I've been very happy with the speed and reliability of the SCSI drives
though they're only 8 GB. They've been running rock solid for better
than 4 years! So I'd like to stay with SCSI unless there is a compelling
reason not to.

Yet another question: If I could find a motherboard with an on-board
Ultra-160 controller, would this be preferable to a PCI-card controller?

Many thanks

Mike Keithley wrote:

> It seems SATA easier to find and is less expensive per unit disk space.
> Would SATA drives perform as well as the Ultra-160 SCSI drives?
>
> I've been very happy with the speed and reliability of the SCSI drives
> though they're only 8 GB.**They've*been*running*rock*solid*for*better
> than 4 years!**So*I'd*like*to*stay*with*SCSI*unless*there *is*a*compelling
> reason not to.

Well, the price factor might be compelling. Personal preferences for SCSI
aside, however, I've been asking about ATA RAID modules in kernel 2.6, and
as far as I can tell so far, they have not yet been ported from 2.4. And
from what I hear, 2.4 doesn't support SATA either. So if you want to use
Linux, you might be better off sticking with SCSI for a little while
longer.

I would love for someone to correct me (on the first count, in particular),
so that I could use kernel 2.6.x on my workstation.

Jeffrey

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:00:50 -0700, Jeffrey Froman wrote:

> I would love for someone to correct me (on the first count, in particular),
> so that I could use kernel 2.6.x on my workstation.

I cant correct you on the first count, but i can on the second, 2.4.27 has
SATA support meaning most all controllers.
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v...angeLog-2.4.27

> Jeffrey

--
If the Linux community is a bunch of thieves because they
try to imitate windows programs, then the Windows community
is built on organized crime.

Regards Richard
pa3gcu@zeelandnet.nl
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/pa3gcu/

Mike Keithley wrote:
>
> Hello group
>
> I'm planning to upgrade my computer and have some questions re disk
> drives:
>
> I currently using SCSI Ultra-160 drives through an Adaptec 2940 PCI
> controller.
>
> It seems SATA easier to find and is less expensive per unit disk space.
> Would SATA drives perform as well as the Ultra-160 SCSI drives?
>
> I've been very happy with the speed and reliability of the SCSI drives
> though they're only 8 GB. They've been running rock solid for better
> than 4 years! So I'd like to stay with SCSI unless there is a compelling
> reason not to.
>
> Yet another question: If I could find a motherboard with an on-board
> Ultra-160 controller, would this be preferable to a PCI-card controller?
>
> Many thanks

I just got my Ultra 320 controller today. I don't think that it would
really matter whether you have onboard SCSI or a controller card. I
would look for a motherboard or controller card with Ultra 320 since you
can still use the Ultra 160 drives with it. You might want to upgrade
someday. I also got a IDE Seagate 120 GB HDD because they were on sale
for $47.00 (after rebate). I figured I would just use the IDE HDD for
storage. Now when I compile a kernel it fails at the end because the
stupid IDE HDD shows up as the "first" drive and lilo wants to put its
boot stuff there. I am totally ignorant when It comes to IDE crap as
I've always been a SCSI person. I am sure I'll get over this little bump
someday. So if you plan to use SCSI and IDE together be warned that
things might be a little tricky.

jamess

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

James <jamess@fda.net> is thought to have
typed the following text on 2004-08-13:
>
> for $47.00 (after rebate). I figured I would just use the IDE HDD for
> storage. Now when I compile a kernel it fails at the end because the
> stupid IDE HDD shows up as the "first" drive and lilo wants to put its
> boot stuff there. I am totally ignorant when It comes to IDE crap as
> I've always been a SCSI person. I am sure I'll get over this little bump
> someday. So if you plan to use SCSI and IDE together be warned that
> things might be a little tricky.
>
What you describe is simply the 'boot' setting in /etc/lilo.conf.

man lilo.conf

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

AOLS fortune mod volume VII
Get yourself a copy at: <URL:http://www.etv.cx/~bartosz>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBHLHZ256ZyNYAOpkRAkTLAJ4+gEpsZ1NOCvrfXVdzqj 8rIuG2RACfRta9
DFaKbTUQR58oTd9zjm4JXe8=
=QprR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:

> What you describe is simply the 'boot' setting in /etc/lilo.conf.

I'd just add you'll probably need to change the "bootup sequence" in
BIOS (i.e. put the SCSI first, like "Bootup sequence: SCSI,C,A").

Just my $0.02.

Yeti
--
When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:15:41 +0000, James wrote:

> So if you plan to use SCSI and IDE together be warned that
> things might be a little tricky.

Its very easy actauly, a simple
boot=/dev/hda
In /etc/lilo.conf would possably solve all the problems, of course dont
forget to run lilo after changes.

> jamess

--
If the Linux community is a bunch of thieves because they
try to imitate windows programs, then the Windows community
is built on organized crime.

Regards Richard
pa3gcu@zeelandnet.nl
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/pa3gcu/

Yeti wrote:
>
> I'd just add you'll probably need to change the "bootup sequence" in
> BIOS (i.e. put the SCSI first, like "Bootup sequence: SCSI,C,A").

Thanks for the reply. I couldn't put SCSI as the first boot device
because I had to boot from the DVD drive which is IDE. Anyway I got
everything working all right.

Thanks again,

jamess

Richard Adams wrote:

> Its very easy actauly, a simple
> boot=/dev/hda
> In /etc/lilo.conf would possably solve all the problems, of course dont
> forget to run lilo after changes.
>
This is what I wound up doing. I just don't understand why I had to,
though. All I use the *#$# IDE HDD for is storage. I don't even mount
the #$@% thing when the computer boots up. It wouldn't boot in frame
buffer mode--I would just get a blank screen, also. I had planned to
turn frame buffer mode off anyway. Now my Nvidia e-Geforce video card
works with the nvidia supper dupper driver, or whatever they call it.

Thanks,

jamess