[OLUG] SCSI vs. IDE Burner

[Vincent]

Eric Penne wrote:
> 
> Why would an ATAPI drive need to be set up with SCSI
> emulation?  I would assume the newest kernels would
> take care of that.  I said before that the SCSI is
> more expensive.  This is because I don't have a SCSI
> card and would have to purchase one.  If you already
> have SCSI then the price would be the same.  But if
> you already have SCSI then you know how to run it and
> it would be easy to set up.  I have no SCSI experience
> and therefore would have to learn about the SCSI
> workings of linux making it harder (more time
> consuming) to set up.  I could always say it is too
> easy and let somebody else do it though. :)  (Where's
> Phil?)
> 
> Vincent you mentioned your system and that you like
> the Plextor SCSI burner and CDROM.  Is there any
> reason that an IDE burner with a 4MB buffer couldn't
> do as good a job?  Is IDE more CPU intensive than
> SCSI?  Why?
> 

I've just had too many bad experiences with IDE CD burners.  The most
annoying one is creating a CD that some cdrom readers can see and some
cannot...  I don't think this has anything to do with Linux because the
same ones do it on windows as well.
In my experience, SCSI burners have been faster and more stable.  You
don't have to be concerned with ATAPI -> SCSI emulation or any crazy
stuff like that either :)
As for "learning about SCSI", there's not much to learn.  Setting
everything up for a SCSI burner is much easier (and less time consuming)
than for ATAPI.

-- 
Do not meddle in the affairs of SysyAdmins,
For they are subtle and quick to anger.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent by OLUG Mailing list Manager, run by ezmlm.  http://olug.bstc.net/ 
To unsubscribe: `echo unsubsribe | mail olug-unsubscribe at bstc.net`