> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:27:02 +0100
> From: Rob Warner <rcw2@ukc.ac.uk>
> 
> I'm thinking of installing RiscBSD on my RiscPC700, but it's only got a 
> 425(ish)Mbyte hard drive :( [with 3000k or so free at the moment]
> 
> soooo.... I'm gonna buy more storage, but I'm not sure what to buy.  Looking
> at the RiscBSD web page, I get the impression that the only supported IDE
> interface is the internal one, so does this mean that I'll have to suffer
> the (relatively) slow speed of it unless I'm prepared to shell out for SCSI?
> (which I'm not - I'd rather have lots of slow storage than a bit of fast,
> expandable storage).  If not, which IDE interface would be best, bearing in
> mind I've got very little cash to spend?
> 
> Any comments, suggestions and particular recommendations of which drives 
> actually work are welcomed.

This should probably go into the FAQ.

You are right. The only working IDE interface at the moment is
the internal one. This is also the fastest device under RiscBSD,
as the SCSI drivers have not been optimized yet.

Which means that for now, you should just go and find yourself
a new, large IDE drive to replace your 425 MB one. This way
you will have the option of adding a CD-ROM or a second IDE
drive at a later time.

We have to expect that the SCSI drivers will improve in the
future, but other IDE cards may be a more distant future.
The problem is that the kernel team does not have the necessary
support for making RiscBSD work with e.g. the RapIDE.

With my configuration and 1.2-beta, the 210 conner drive
is approximately 700 KB/s and the Power-tec with a fast SCSI
drive is around 110 KB/s. The corresponding figures for
RISC OS are around 1100 KB/s and 3500 KB/s respectively.

If you are going to install X, you should have at least
400 MB for RiscBSD.

I hope this will give you some idea about what you
should do.

Kjetil B.