Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] 32/96 x 24 playback improvements, I think
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: pe helmi 04 2000 - 11:41:47 EST
>I agree that on IDE if you run a master/slave configuration there could be
>bandwidth problems if you load the channel heavily,
>but assuming that you run with 1 IDE disk per channel,
>then you have the fulll bandwidth available on each disk,
>I am sure that using this configuration, you can browse the web and do HD
>recording without problems.
Its not about bandwidth. Its about being able to queue up multiple
disk requests with the controller, instead of having to wait for one
of them to finish before you can issue another. You can get full
bandwidth from such a system - what you can't do is get good
performance from applications, because the disk driver has to block
before it can send the next request to the controller.
There was a whole thread on slashdot about this, oh, maybe 2 weeks ago
or less. The premise of the "story" was "the death of SCSI ?" Almost
every person who wrote in talked about this problem with IDE drives. A
few others talked about the quality of the drive h/w peripherals,
which although it should theoretically be similar or identical, too
often is much cheaper and prone to breakage.
>But the funny thing would be to browse the web and do HD recording on
>the SAME disk. :-) but linux lacks the realtime disk scheduler,
>therefore we HAVE to use 2 disk, wheter we use SCSI or not.
Not true. I do this. My system partitions are split over both of my
disks, so its hard to tell precisely what activity hits what disk, but
I can definitely invoke programs from the same disk that the HDR
"tape" is stored on, and it works fine, even when HDR is under way.
I think :) I'll check some more and let you know.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:27 EST