home bbs files messages ]

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