Re: No need to optimize in assembly anymore
From: Randall Hyde (randyhyde_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 05/20/04
- Next message: Beth: "Re: Enhanced Unicode support for "Go" tools"
- Previous message: wolfgang kern: "Re: Performance problem when using 'movaps' SSE instruction."
- In reply to: Matt Taylor: "Re: No need to optimize in assembly anymore"
- Next in thread: Scott Moore: "Re: No need to optimize in assembly anymore"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:30:55 +0000 (UTC)
"Matt Taylor" <para@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PfXqc.2409$6%6.1638@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Randall Hyde" <randyhyde@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xpVqc.2074$Tn6.1682@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Aren't SCSI and fibrechannel intimately related as well?
Yep, forgot about that one.
>
> I would expect 1394 to underperform since the protocol has relatively high
> overhead and low transfer speeds.
Maybe FW400, but don't forget that they're shipping FW800 today and
FW1600 is around the bend.
> However, I am curious to know how far
> apart U320 and SCSI-over-SATA are. SATA seems competitive at least, though
> at the moment most drives and chipsets use the converter chips. Supposedly
> the conversion adds something like 5% overhead; I presume that is latency.
Again, as long as the transport protocol is faster than a disk drive can
physically
transfer data, the important issue is going to be concurrent operation for
RAID processing. SATA, alas, loses big time to SCSI in this department from
what I hear (I've not personally tried to set up a SATA RAID device, so I
can't personally vouch for this, but I've talked to some people who have and
they say it wasn't worth the effort; OTOH, I am running SCSI RAID and it
makes a *big* difference in performance; SATA's problems may be due
to the current technologies in use, I don't know).
> Medium aside, you're not going to find 15K rpm SATA disks.
They are available today. Indeed, I believe you can even get 15K PATA
drives if you look hard enough. A project I'm working on briefly considered
the 15K SATA drives, but went with 7,200 RPM because the data transfer
rates were actually better on the 7.2K drives.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
- Next message: Beth: "Re: Enhanced Unicode support for "Go" tools"
- Previous message: wolfgang kern: "Re: Performance problem when using 'movaps' SSE instruction."
- In reply to: Matt Taylor: "Re: No need to optimize in assembly anymore"
- Next in thread: Scott Moore: "Re: No need to optimize in assembly anymore"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
