Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware    |    Discussing IBM PS/2 hardware    |    42,985 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 41,653 of 42,985    |
|    Louis Ohland to schimmi    |
|    All that Schimmis is not gold.    |
|    20 Apr 23 17:37:13    |
      From: ohland@charter.net              Sorry, we don't have a full busmaster local bus implementation to       compare to. The 56 SCS is a cost reduced implementation, at some point,       the CPU has to step in to emulate the missing functionality.              So trying to compare a true SCSI busmaster, that can perform all SCSI       control tasks without CPU involvement, to a cost reduced single SCSI       chip, is unwarranted.              So, IBM chose to have a reduced functionality SCSI Control Chip on the       CPU local bus, as long as the system isn't heavily multi-tasked, you       probably wouldn't notice the difference.              schimmi wrote:       > I'm a bit off here, sorry. The question I now have in mind is: is SCSI       between CPU and MCA better than SCSI on MCA, nicely packed between all other       MCA-devices, on one bus? I mean, local bus operations should impact MCA       transactions and vice versa,        probably affecting the overall performance Oo       >       > schimmi schrieb am Donnerstag, 20. April 2023 um 22:05:21 UTC+2:       >> Guess there was only one CPU made for this - the DX50. On my old 486/VLB       setup I always had problems even with 40MHz/VLB using more than just the       graphics adapter. On a 3-slot VLB Board you had one busmastering and       accordingly 2 secondary slots you        had to address using more than one card, especially with a SCSI/IO-Cards. With       all three VLB slots filled, it was some kind of a gamble if the system was       stable, even with 40MHz :-/ VLB was very card-dependant.       >> Tomas Slavotinek schrieb am Donnerstag, 20. April 2023 um 16:20:17 UTC+2:       >>> On 20.04.2023 3:13, Louis Ohland wrote:       >>>> The number of slots also decreases with increased speed. IIRC, you could       >>>> only use one slot at 50MHz.       >>>>       >>>> Tomas Slavotinek wrote:       >>>>> hence the limitation to 3 or less slots).       >>> That's correct. At 50 MHz you were lucky if it even worked in the       >>> single-slot configuration. The CPU bus was never designed for something       >>> like this...              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca