I am short on PCI slots on SAM460ex, but otherwize, as every dreamer of having CBM A3000 would use real scsi.device

I have not so bad PC PCI Adaptec 39160 160MB/s
http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/support/scsi/u160/asc-39160/

Not something that could beat SATA/SATA2, and in reality SCSI is even more rare
and expensive then ever. But yet, one day would love to test it at its best.

Is it anyhow supported in MOS, especially booting from SCSI drive and whats going on with SCSCI at all? Does it make sense in 21st century?

SCSI-compatibility: http://www.morphos.de/hardware
Booting: NO!
I use SCSI in my PEG2 for scanner, some old ZIP-Drives and a LVD-Raid-Backupsystem.....

In the space of personal computing SCSI is even more a dead end than PPC or Cell ....

> I have not so bad PC PCI Adaptec 39160 160MB/s [...]
> Not something that could beat SATA/SATA2

It's a bit faster than SATA1 actually.

> Is it anyhow supported in MOS

It doesn't seem to have a MorphOS-supported SCSI chipset.

> whats going on with SCSCI at all?

SCSI has been superseded by SAS just like PATA has been by SATA. Furthermore, SAS controllers can use SATA devices.

Yes, Andreas is right.
I have used SCSI U320 drives on a Quicksilver and they are definitely faster than most mechanical alternatives.

I have a scsi controller in my G4. I also use it for old scsi drives or scsi scanners.

I think SCSI only makes sense for compatiblity purposes (SCSI flatbed scanners).

Quote:

Sadly SAM460ex is way too limited to dream of SCSI use
and X500 case limits it a bit more.

Out of my curiosity, which chipsets are supported, no boot, but SCSI drive
for storage and SCSI scanners can be used?

Since SATA seems not to be dead as many think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI#USB_Attached_SCSI

it would be interesting to much much later add support for some
best SCSI PCI-E x1 or whatever, to have a nice Amigan touch
that can add flavour to some future high end supported PPC, ARM or x64 :)

> SAM460ex is way too limited to dream of SCSI use

I don't know why you'd prefer SCSI over SATA, but why shouldn't it be possible to use a SCSI card in the PCI slot?

> which chipsets are supported [...]?

See comment #2 in this thread where you were already given the answer to this question.

> Since SATA seems not to be dead as many think
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI#USB_Attached_SCSI

What has UAS to do with SATA?

> it would be interesting to much much later add support for some best SCSI PCI-E x1

Such cards are not exactly cheap:

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=scc&xf=807_PCIe+x1#xf_top

Quote:

I don't know why you'd prefer SCSI over SATA, but why shouldn't it be possible to use a SCSI card in the PCI slot?

> which chipsets are supported [...]?

Quote:

I ll check it, but again, I prefer straight answers to further references.
Very few, very old, and unlikely to boot, I suppose

Quote:

Who mentioned SATA? It has with SCSI usability in modern days, I suppose.
If it eliminates a real need for SCSI card inside, way better.

> it would be interesting to much much later add support for some best SCSI PCI-E x1

Quote:

Yes, I ment offering some high level features that is not by default
present in Windows, MacOSX and Linux, big trio of today.

Anyway, they were never cheap (good SCSI cards)



[ Edited by vox 16.01.2014 - 12:17 ]

> I ll check it, but again, I prefer straight answers to further references.

Why should anyone copy the list of supported hardware from the official MorphOS website for you? You were given the direct link to the page, so don't be lazy and just click it. That shouldn't be too much to ask for.

>>> Since SATA seems not to be dead as many think
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI#USB_Attached_SCSI

>> What has UAS to do with SATA?.

> Who mentioned SATA?

You did, in the part I quoted from you.

>> Such cards are not exactly cheap:
>> http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=scc&xf=807_PCIe+x1#xf_top

> they were never cheap (good SCSI cards)

I don't know what you deem a "good" SCSI card, but currently the cheapest PCI SCSI card is less than a fifth of the cheapest PCIe x1 SCSI card:

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=scc&xf=807_PCI&sort=p#xf_top

[quote]Andreas_Wolf wrote:
> I ll check it, but again, I prefer straight answers to further references.

Why should anyone copy the list of supported hardware from the official MorphOS website for you? You were given the direct link to the page, so don't be lazy and just click it. That shouldn't be too much to ask for. [/quote]

Why should I list all supported hardware, when I have asked for certain cards?
Its similar to giving overall info / pointing to e.g. root of website, instead
of giving straight answers. No Adaptec, sadly.

In this case:
SCSI Adapter

Symbios 710
Symbios 770
Symbios 810
Symbios 815
Symbios 825
Symbios 875
Symbios 89x

[/quote] >>> Since SATA seems not to be dead as many think
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI#USB_Attached_SCSI

>> What has UAS to do with SATA?.

> Who mentioned SATA?

You did, in the part I quoted from you. [/quote]

My bad, it was supposed to say SCSI.

>> Such cards are not exactly cheap:
>> http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=scc&xf=807_PCIe+x1#xf_top

[/quote] I don't know what you deem a "good" SCSI card, but currently the cheapest PCI SCSI card is less than a fifth of the cheapest PCIe x1 SCSI card:

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=scc&xf=807_PCI&sort=p#xf_top[/quote]

In time, PCI will be dead as ISA and cards that are now high end will become common. Best would be if it was onboard.

> Why should I list all supported hardware

Nobody asked you to list anything. Don't make up things, please.

> when I have asked for certain cards?

You asked for a list of MorphOS-supported SCSI chipsets and you got a link to the official list. I really don't know what you're complaining about.

> Its similar to giving overall info / pointing to e.g. root of website

No, you were given the direct link to the relevant page, not to the root of the website.

> In time, PCI will be dead as ISA

This is probably true, but doesn't change the fact that PCI SCSI cards can be had way cheaper than PCIe x1 SCSI cards, which renders your justification of the high PCIe x1 card prices by saying that "good" SCSI cards were never cheap questionable at best.

Quote:

I was provided with overall supported hardware list, not just SCSI controllers.

Quote:

Habit of providing links, instead of answers. In time people will prefer
my stylee, even you are defenetely way more knowledgable person.

Quote:

Uh oh, yes ... yes ...

Quote:

Good SCSI cards were NEVER cheap.

And why would you need a "good SCSI card" ?

Still got some data on last century SCSI-HDs (Sequests,Zips or even tape) ? Do yourself a favour and copy it to a more current&reliable medium -> any working SCSI-card listed on MorphOS.de will work and can be removed after finishing the task.

Still got some SCSI-scanner ? Sure most of todays USB-scanners are crap, but getting one that will supercede anything SCSI won't be a biggie.
(and even if, even the cheapest/slowest supported SCSI-card would be enough to keep the old scanner working)

-> SCSI is dead, obsolete, has runs it's course .....

Quote:

Except, of course, that U320 is still faster than SATA.
Reliability...well what do you want from drives that spin at 10-15k rpm?

It is all moot though.

I have a Raptor I installed in one of my G5s (I have two now) and it gives me the benefit of higher rotation speed and an SATA interface.

Right now, all I need is an external drive housing (as Apple, perpetual geniuses that they are, only put two drive bays in the G5).

Quote:

320MB/s vs. 6Gb/s(SATA_3) ? Ermm....

Well even if we only have SATA_1 atm, those 1.5Gb/s are still close enough to U320 for the gap to be more than closed in real life by useing newer HDs or even SSDs.

-> SCSI is still dead



[ Edited by Kronos 19.01.2014 - 17:38 ]

Quote:

Yes, first because we don't have SATA3, just 1 and 2.
Second because SATA rarely saturates that bandwidth.

And SCSI is hardly dead, it just moved to SAS.

Although...now that you mention it, I wouldn't mind an SATA3 controller.
Maybe something based on PCI-E so vOX would be quiet.

Quote:

In related news:
ST506 ain't dead, it just moved IDE and then SATA ....

Quote:

In a weird way, almost true.
But then, an IDE controller isn't going to be able to handle an ancient RLL encoded drive.
Curiously enough, SAS isn't backward compatible with SCSI, but with SATA2.

> I was provided with overall supported hardware list, not just SCSI controllers.

That's because there is no official page dedicated to just the supported SCSI chipsets. Seriously, how long did it take you to scroll down and find the SCSI list after you clicked the link?

> Habit of providing links, instead of answers.

Not just random links but links to the actual answers on the official website.

>> PCI SCSI cards can be had way cheaper than PCIe x1 SCSI cards, which renders
>> your justification of the high PCIe x1 card prices by saying that "good" SCSI cards
>> were never cheap questionable at best.

> Good SCSI cards were NEVER cheap.

Again: Compared to PCIe x1 SCSI cards, PCI SCSI cards are very cheap.

> I wouldn't mind an SATA3 controller. Maybe something based on PCI-E so
> vOX would be quiet.

SATA3 controllers are always PCIe-based. At least I couldn't find anything else.

Quote:

Yes, I know Andreas.
We have discussed this before.
ATA133 pretty much consumed the entire capacity of a PCI bus.
PCI simply can not handle the transfer rates of later drives.
So when we start talking about U320 or SATA, what is really needed is a wider or faster bus.
64 bit PCI, PCI-X, PCI-E - anything more capable than PCI.
Simply stating the max transfer rate of a drive, when it is being bottleneck by an archaic interface doesn't give you a fair measure of how the drive will perform.
Rotational speed, buffer size and access time also play a major role in the ultimate performance of a drive.

While I applaud the adoption of the Promise SATAII interface cards, I am fully aware that as they use a PCI interface, their main advantage will be in allowing us to use larger drives with bigger caches.

Until we have a more advanced interface/bus our drives will face this restriction.

>>> I wouldn't mind an SATA3 controller. Maybe something based on PCI-E so
>>> vOX would be quiet.

>> SATA3 controllers are always PCIe-based. At least I couldn't find anything else.

> Yes, I know Andreas.

I see. Your wording implied to me that you don't.

> what is really needed is a wider or faster bus. 64 bit PCI, PCI-X, PCI-E - anything more
> capable than PCI. [...] Until we have a more advanced interface/bus our drives will face
> this restriction.

I think we do have 64-bit PCI and PCI-X in some MorphOS-supported PowerMacs.

>I think we do have 64-bit PCI and PCI-X in some MorphOS-supported PowerMacs.

Yes, at one time I kept a PCI-X G5 SATAII controller around, but as it used a Marvell chipset it was never a likely candidate for support so I sold it recently.

For now, I will uses Raptor drives and put up with the bottleneck.

There are Promise PCI-X controllers that are closely related to the newly supported controllers, but I don't expect them to be supported anytime soon either.

Just imagine what an SATAIII RAID array interfaced to an X4 PCI-E controller card could do in the dual and quad core G5s.

THAT would be a nice upgrade.