CH> What's windows 95 have to do with it mike?
 MB> Windows 95 is the reason why IDE hard drives are so 
 MB> popular and cheap: since you don't get any performance 
 MB> improvement by going from IDE to SCSI under Windows 95, 
 MB> most people don't do it.  Worse, many of the published 
 MB> disk I/O benchmarks are based on Windows 95 hosted 
 MB> tests.
For crying out loud. Now I've seen Windows 95 blamed for -everything-. Since 
this is the Novell Conference, I won't even debate with you how wrong you are 
about a good busmastering ultrawide SCSI setup not improving Windows 95 setup 
over an IDE setup.
 CH> We are talking about Novell, whose primary use is a file/print 
 CH> server, -not- an applications server and certainly not a system 
 CH> for running desktop apps whilst peer-to-peer networking in the 
 CH> same manner as OS/2, 95, NT, or Linux. Novel's architecture and 
 CH> use is completely differenct than the multitasking/multitasking 
 CH> systems you are using as a example to justify a good 
 CH> bustmastering SCSI setup.
 MB> No, the internal architecture of NetWare is 
 MB> substantially similar to that of OS/2, NT, and Linux.  
-Except- with 99% of them, you are not running Multiuser apps nor are you 
running Desktops apps. As you should well know, Novell is -not- really 
recognized as much of a multiuser operating system nor is it used much  in that environment. 99% of Novell's application is as a file/printer 
server. Period. That makes it a completely different application/architecture 
than the other OS's you are trying to relate busmaster SCSI setups too. 
But hey, answer the crux of the question. If you can much more than saturate 
a 10 base T bandwidth with and IDE pentium system (which with modern cheap 
pentium 6.4gig systems, you *easily* can) other than that's the way you've 
always done it and philosophize (with some one elses money) that you should 
-always- use SCSI with Novell what speed/performance benfifit would you get 
from SCSI if the IDE setup already, even under the most extreme useage can 
keep the 10bt bandwidth saturated? Are you saying that if you use SCSI then 
some how the effective bandwidth of 10bt ethernet cable will be increased?
Whether there are 10 or 1000 LAN users on a 10bt network, if the server can 
much  more than saturate the bandwidth, how can putting in a faster server 
help? The limit is the total amount of data the cable can carry on a 
continous basis, not how fast the data comes off the hard drive. 
Does your company sell the hardware for all these networks you set up Mike?
But before you answer any of the above, are you trying to say that a Pentium 
system with an IDE busmastering controller setup as a dedicated Novell 
File/Printer server can't keep a 10bt ethernet bandwidth saturated???? Cause 
if you -really- believe that, then the rest of this thread is irrelevant.
--- Maximus/NT 3.01b1
---------------