Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux | Date | Sun, 13 Feb 2000 15:44:17 -0500 | From | "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <> |
| |
In message <20000213115252.A628@best.com>, Karen Shaeffer writes: +----- | The original proposal from Larry McVoy was to replace the electronics now | inside a disk drive with an embedded general purpose processor. I'll repeat +--->8
So? This differs from current SCSI drives only in degree, not in kind. If the drive vendors felt the need to do it, I feel quite certain they could do it, and in sufficient volume to make it competitive with high-end SCSI.
| Imagine that cheapo IDIE drives could be bought soon with 100BaseT and | not so soon with GigEth over copper connecters. They cost about $100 | more than your current IDE drives (which are essentially free :-) | | Imagine Linux with STP in the kernel on _both_ ends of the connection. +--->8
Right, "simple" NASD drives in a private SAN. This differs from SCSI exactly how?
-- brandon s. allbery os/2,linux,solaris,perl allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator kthkrb,heimdal,gnome,rt allbery@ece.cmu.edu carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering kf8nh We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you missed the point.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |