> > > I used/using various GigaByte BX, BXS, BXC motherboards,
> > > and I don't use anything but SCSI disk subsytem(s).  All
> > 
> > IDE today gives not-much-worse performance with 1/5 of price
> 
> Unless you need 6 drives to do the job, in which case the cable length
> requirements become a burden.  Also, SCSI disks work in everything from
> the older VAXen (if you're lucky enough to have a SCSI adapter in it
> ;-) to the newest Alphas, and almost everything inbetween (Mac68k, Sun,
> etc...).  There are definitely advantages to using SCSI still - like
> anything else, it's a matter of 1) requirements, and 2) personal taste.

you are absolutely right that it is better solution but is incredibly
expensive . but IDE with it's 1/5 price offers similar performance and it
is possible to plug 10 drives without problems. unfortunately i've needed
4 extra IDE controllers instead of 2 as netbsd does not support
disconnect/reconnect on IDE so you need to plus every ide drive on
separate channel.
> 
> wojtek@3miasto.net does have a point, tho, that IDE is a viable solution
> for many setups, and is usually much cheaper than an equivilent SCSI
> system.  I've never seen a big difference between building a kernel on a
> recent IDE disk, and a SCSI disk.  Multi-user, heavy load?  Well, that
> depends on your requirements, taste, and the $$$ in your bank account ;-)

not a problem with UDMA IDE. the only disadventage IMHO is problem in
using lots of devices in one machine.

> SCSI is very stable as long as it's done properly.  I've had more troubles
> using an Ultra-100 drive reliably at high speeds than using an Ultra-160

i had no problems using both.

> LVD drive (actually, I've never had a problem running Ultra-160 - 
> "just works").  Again, a matter of requirements and taste.

with not-only-disks configuration, more than 4 devices and long cables
there are problems.