Fw: [mapserver-users] RE: To SCSI or not ?

[Eric Frost]

The way I understand it, IDE uses a lot of CPU time if you have many 
requests, SCSI uses next to none.. on one of our servers (file/print/
terminal) we have a 4-drive SCSI array and one 80 GB IDE drive for
temporary storage... when anyone transfers large amounts of data 
to/from the IDE drive, the terminal services sessions start to hang--
and this is a dual-CPU machine.

Anyway, SCSI just does better for servers.. but can definitely eat up 
your budget. You could start with the IDE drive--it will work--, then 
depending on how many hits you eventually get, the IDE machine 
may need to be replaced with a faster machine sooner than if you 
started with a SCSI drive...

Eric



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jim Burnett 
To: nyon ; mapserver-users at lists.gis.umn.edu 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [mapserver-users] RE: To SCSI or not ?


Yes, 
With SCSI more then 1 application can access your hard drive at a time.
 
With IDE, only 1 aplpication can access your hard drive at a time.
 
So If you go with SCSI, then if you have 10 people request a map from your mapserver, then each persons request wont have to waite for the previous request to finish( on the hard drive).
If you plan on getting a ton of hits( people using your site), got with SCSI.
 
-jim

 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: nyon 
  To: mapserver-users at lists.gis.umn.edu 
  Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 10:49 PM
  Subject: [mapserver-users] RE: To SCSI or not ?


  Hi,

  I am setting up my map server on a shoestring budget and was 
  wondering whether a SCSI hardisk makes a big difference compared to a IDE- 7200rpm hd for
  serving maps.

  thanks
    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-users/attachments/20010730/641271cb/attachment.htm>