why not scsi disks for servers

[Jeff Weber]

We have been using a pair of SCSI 327MB as extra disks on our 3/280 for
about 6 months now.  We leave the 575SMDs in place for nd use/space but
for cheap data storage you can't beat a pair of 327MB (sd0 and sd1).

I've tried running some of our applications code (text and graphic
pagination) with SMD vs ESDI/SCSI and have found that there isn't much
difference in timings (given: standalone system).  I can't comment on
fileservers' performance re: SCSI vs SMD.

We've recently tried putting a small SCSI disk on our diskless clients for
nd space ONLY.  This lets the fileserver be a fileserver and doesn't load
it up with nd requirements.  Thus smaller, cheaper (read: SCSI) disks are
partical for fileservers.  Speed of this disk is very important and the
size can be the same as you have traditionaly allowed for nd space on the
fileserver.

For large pagination jobs (200 pages) a 3/50MQ-4 client with a local nd
disk is very close to speed with a 3/60MQ-8.  This was nice to see as it
proves the point that Sun makes nice CPU's but unless you can keep them
fed more MIPS is just so much heat.

	Jeff Weber