Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux | Date | Sun, 13 Feb 2000 14:04:38 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> |
| |
: Again, I'm not talking about protocols. I'm addressing the argument that an : STP-capable drive is somehow fundamentally different from a SCSI-capable : one, since that's the argument that keeps being raised against this idea. : I'm talking about the controller board, not the details of communication.
OK, I think I get it. Your point is that SCSI is similar in complexity to STP so the fact that SCSI exists says that drives with STP (and perhaps Linux) are pretty much a done deal. Is that it? If so, excuse my slow brain, it takes me a while sometimes.
It's a good point, the only flaw is that SCSI drives are way more expensive than IDE drives. The question is if that is inherent or just mark up...
- 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/
| |