On 26 Dec 97 07:56am, Chris Holten wrote to Wes Newell:
 GF> You should have seen those older clients REALLY scream when
 GF> they insisted on adding a SECOND IDE drive to the server!
 GF> You KNOW what kind of a performance hit they took then.
 MB> Yes, that's a clear mistake to do.
 WN> OK, I'll bite. I added a second IDE drive (WD 1.6gig)
 WN> to our 3.12 server and didn't notice any slowdown. I
 WN> did add it to the second IDE channel though, so there's
 WN> only one drive per channel. Perhaps this is why there
 WN> wasn't a decrease in performance?
 CH> I wouldn't worry at all about using EIDE on a novell server. In
 CH> most typical Novell file/print server 10bt ethernet setups
 CH> using 1997 EIDE hardware technology, it will give you just as
 CH> good a performance as any SCSI setup will as with any 100mhz or
 CH> better pentium and the amount of RAM Novell recommends, will
 CH> -easly- saturate a 10bt bandwith.  If you were to purchase a
 CH> good busmastering SCSI setup with a decent 6.4 gig SCSI drive,
 CH> you would spend at least $400-$600 more than you will on an IDE
 CH> setup. SCSI is nice, and if you ever go to 100 base T, you
 CH> might find a busmastering SCSI setup faster. It's up to you to
 CH> evaluate. Even with 100 base T, if your network is a 25 user or
 CH> less, you are probably wasting $400 on a SCSI Novell server. If
 CH> you want to increase.
And here is where you are totally wrong.  I suggest you upgrade your
benchmarking software and try it again.
I will happily stand by my claims and enjoy the fact that my clients are
getting the performance and reliability they paid for.  If you like
going back and explaining to your clients why they have problems (both
efficiency-wise and hardware-wise) periodically and quite a bit more
often in your "bare minimum" requirements system, that's your
perogative.  Me, I care about my clients and give them what they
deserve, not what I can get away with.
George
... Do it only with the best.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.4P [Reg]
---------------