SCSI U320 and OS/2

SCSI U320 and OS/2

Post by bicidocXXX » Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:18:35


Has anybody use any of the LSI logic scsi adapters u320? For what I gather are
the only ones with an OS/2 driver. The driver is for <OS/2 Warp Server for
eBusiness operating system version 4.52 or later> so I assume it should work
with the IBM CP2 or eComstation 1.1.
The LSI logic adapters are
o LSI53C1020
o LSI53C1030



Regards,

-=terry (Denver)=-
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
AIM: terryXela
 
 
 

SCSI U320 and OS/2

Post by thole » Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:21:11

Teruel de Campo writes:


Although I have not used them, there was some discussion of Ultra 320
SCSI adapters a while back. As I recall, you need to have a 64-bit PCI
bus to take advantage of the Ultra 320 bandwidth, otherwise the PCI bus
is the bottlebeck. I'm using Ultra 160 SCSI on a 32-bit PCI bus. The
speed difference compared to my other OS/2 machines is noticeable.

 
 
 

SCSI U320 and OS/2

Post by bicidocXXX » Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:54:06

In message <sHUcb.17280$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM > - XXXX@XXXXX.COM ,
26 Sep 2003 10:39:20 GMT writes:
:>
:>Trevor Hemsley writes:
:>
:>>> As I recall, you need to have a 64-bit PCI
:>>> bus to take advantage of the Ultra 320 bandwidth, otherwise the PCI bus
:>>> is the bottlebeck.
:>
:>> The same is true for U160 adapters. A standard 32 bit, 33MHz PCI bus
:>> has 132MB/sec bandwidth and overheads mean that only ~100MB/sec is
:>> useable. 160 > 100...
:>
:>Meanwhile, my disk drives can sustain transfer rates only around
:>25 MB/sec, so in reality the disk drives are the bottleneck, unless
:>more than four are going simultaneously. The most I've had going
:>simultaneously is three, so far.


Therefore I can get similar performance for a single workstation with serial
ata, is that true? The big questions is if it worth it to invest in an U320
adapter and u320 drives for a single workstation.
Thank you both of you for your input.



Regards,

-=terry (Denver)=-
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
AIM: terryXela
 
 
 

SCSI U320 and OS/2

Post by Trevor Hem » Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:45:24

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:21:11 UTC in comp.os.os2.setup.storage,



The same is true for U160 adapters. A standard 32 bit, 33MHz PCI bus
has 132MB/sec bandwidth and overheads mean that only ~100MB/sec is
useable. 160 > 100...

--
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK.
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 
 
 

SCSI U320 and OS/2

Post by thole » Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:39:20

Trevor Hemsley writes:



Meanwhile, my disk drives can sustain transfer rates only around
25 MB/sec, so in reality the disk drives are the bottleneck, unless
more than four are going simultaneously. The most I've had going
simultaneously is three, so far.
 
 
 

SCSI U320 and OS/2

Post by thole » Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:01:32

Teruel de Campo writes:






Don't know enough about SATA to say. SCSI really shines in a multi-disk
environment where those disks are being accessed simultaneously. ATA
has gotten fast (100 MB/sec is standard on motherboards now, with some
manufacturers offering 133 MB/sec drives, though they often include a
PCI card to deliver said speed). I've heard about SATA, but haven't
read up enough on it to know how it differs from ATA.


Not unless you do a lot of I/O-intensive multitasking, which is the sort
of thing encountered by a server, but not very often on a personal
workstation.
 
 
 

SCSI U320 and OS/2

Post by bicidocXXX » Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:06:01

:>
:>> The big questions is if it worth it to invest in an U320
:>> adapter and u320 drives for a single workstation.
:>
:>Not unless you do a lot of I/O-intensive multitasking, which is the sort
:>of thing encountered by a server, but not very often on a personal
:>workstation.

I have always use SCSI this will be my *** one without it. Thank you for your
help.



Regards,

-=terry (Denver)=-
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
AIM: terryXela