[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux
In message <>, Larry McVoy writes:
| 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.

That's exactly it. SCSI isn't *that* simple a protocol, so SCSI drives need
to have a fair amount of intelligence onboard; the incremental improvement
for fancier schemes such as STP is minimal.

| 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...

Markup. SCSI has never been popular enough to get serious volume-based
price reductions; and those who *do* want it are willing to pay the markup.
But then, that's what the drive manufacturers would like to see, given the
nonexistent margins on (E)IDE. Make it "sexy" enough that it sells better
than SCSI, without making it so much of a commodity that margins fall
through the floor.

brandon s. allbery os/2,linux,solaris,perl
system administrator kthkrb,heimdal,gnome,rt
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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.046 / U:40.292 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site