Hi Leonard,

You wrote to Andy Roberts:

LE> ET> Ofcourse you can still boot from SCSI-ID 0 or 1, but it's not
LE> ET> restricted any more to boot from those two

LE> AR> Alright granted.  But remember way back years ago when CPUs were slow
LE> AR> and it was important to put your modem on a low IRQ.  Think about the
LE> AR> reason for that.  Sure it would work on most any IRQ, but not as well
LE> AR> under all conditions.  I'm trying to make an analogy to IRQ and SCSI
LE> AR> ID.  Granted as CPUs get faster the need to adhere to the old rules of
LE> AR> thumb become less important.  But can you give me a good reason NOT to
LE> AR> put my most demanding and fastest SCSI devices on the lowest SCSI ID
LE> AR> and the next fastest and next most demanding devices in order of
higher
LE> AR> SCSI IDs with the slowest and least demanding devices on the highest
LE> AR> SCSI ID, with the exception that the controller itself is almost
always
LE> AR> on SCSI ID7 by default.

LE>Well, for what it's worth, on Mac gear, the first HD is always ID 6.
LE>And you work *down* towards zero. I've alsoi run into at least on PC
LE>SCSI card where things worked better did things that way.

I know there are systems where things are done that way, but I have read
that the PC way of putting the fastest devices (the HDs) on the lowest
priority SCSI IDs gave the best overall performance as it allowed slow
devices to get a look in (because they had a higher priority than the
HDs the HDs couldn't hog the SCSI bus). The SCSI HBA always needs to be
the highest priority device on the SCSI bus.

George
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X Study the past, if you would divine the future.

--- Maximus/2 3.01
292/854