MB> Chris Holten wrote in a message to George Fliger:
 GF> Novell doesn't recommend IDE for their NOS.  You should really follow
 GF> their guidelines.
 CH> That's probably one of the growing number of reasons a very
 CH> large portion of Novell's customer base is moving on to
 CH> other more flexible NOS. Novell's methodology and attitude
 CH> is archaic. It's showing up quite well in thier financial
 CH> reports.
 MB> The problems of IDE have nothing to do with the 
 MB> particular operating system, and the same disadvantages 
 MB> of IDE are experienced with NT, OS/2, or any other 
 MB> truly multitasking operating system.  You do not see 
 MB> the IDE penalty with Windows 95 because it cannot 
 MB> multiplex I/O even if the hardware supports it.
What's windows 95 have to do with it mike? We are talking about Novell, whose 
primary use is a file/print server, -not- an applications server and 
certainly not a system for running desktop apps whilst peer-to-peer 
networking in the same manner as OS/2, 95, NT, or Linux. Novel's architecture 
and use is completely differenct than the multitasking/multitasking systems 
you are using as a example to justify a good bustmastering SCSI setup.  No 
doubt on most any network, 95, like any multitasking or multiuser system 
performance could be significantly sped up with a good busmaster SCSI 
controller because of reducing CPU load. No doubt IDE can use a significant 
amount of CPU resources as compared to a SCSI, which is why I run SCSI on 
high performance desktop or multituser systems. That's obvious. What 
obviously isn't to some folks is that if your system has enough CPU strength 
/ drive throughput to much more than saturate a 10 base T ethernet band 
width, than that extra money you spent on a more expensive SCSI setup was not 
necessary. Don't confuse what's required for a multiuser system with Novell, 
because Novell as a file/print server is not a multiuser application. 
The same engineering principles apply to Novell, but as far as novell and the 
discussions I'm following in this conference about Novell and SCSI vs IDE, 
they are grossly exaggerated and the benifits of using a SCSI on a novell 
10bt file/print server, as compared to modern IDE system are nil. Use a bit 
of logic. Why are you concerned with a system whose sole purpose in life is 
file/print server have more or less CPU useage with IDE than SCSI? You are 
not running multiuser or desktop apps with it, so aAll the system has to be 
able to do is staturate bandwith, which with 10bt ethernet, any Pentium or 
better, IDE, SCSI, whatever system can do standing on it's head. What you are 
saying is that one must spend more money so that the CPU is 20-50% utilized 
during peak useage instead of 30-80% utilized. As long as the system can keep 
the bandwidth saturated (which modern busmastering IDE/Pentium or better 
system *easily* can) you are wasting money on SCSI on a dedicated file/print 
server. You may evaluate a 100bt setup and decide that there is some benifit 
to SCSI, but that is not the network the original thread to this message was 
concerned when the blind "always use SCSI" recommendations were made ("Nobody 
ever got fired for using IBM" either). Each installation should be evaluated 
and designed for optimum performance/economics. Blindly stuffing a SCSI 
controller in every Novell/File print server because of an attitude/rule of 
thumb Novell and it's deciples started promulgating 10 years ago may not be 
best for the people who hire some one to design a network for them or a 
person that already owns a 6.4gig busmaster IDE drive.
No doubt on 386 systems and slow 486 systems that didn't have enough memory, 
SCSI Busmastering improved performance on a 10BT network, but you are really 
over engineering and underdesigning if you think that you should only use 
SCSI on a novell 10bt network. "Spending someone elses money"..if you will. 
Also, with newer more modern IDE drives and modern busmastering IDE chipsets 
(Intel HX/VX/TX for instance) than the ones you tested years ago when you 
came to the conclusion that running two IDE drives on the same channel would 
greatly slow down the system has not been an issue for at least a couple of 
years now (Starting Intel Triton II chipset and most major brand mode 4 1.2 
gig or better IDE drives mfg'd in the past three years).  The guy with the 
6.4 gig drive can use 3 more just like the first one, for 24meg total with no 
slowdown in performance with one as compared hanging 3 or 4 of them in his 
Novell system. 24 meg oughta hold for a while .
Heck I'd put the fast SCSI setups on the Workstation that need the extra 
speed Mike. I sure wouldn't waste them on an archaic old Novell Server file 
print server .
--- Maximus/NT 3.01b1
---------------