Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:41:41 +0100 (MET) | From | Bjorn Wesen <> | Subject | Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux |
| |
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, J.D. Bakker wrote: > My estimate is that adding a minimal StrongARM+100BT to a disk drive adds > $40-$50 maximum to the BOM cost at volumes >10k; less if you go for higher > quantities and stuff an SA-1 (or other fast core) and integrated 100[0]BT > into an ASIC.
I don't doubt the feasability of the HW design at all at that price. The main problem is probably simply cold feet. Imagine you are a hot-shot HD manufacturer. You instinctively feel "this is cool stuff", and prepare the design and R&D. All is well. Until you come to think "can I even find 1 million customers who understands how to use this thingy?", and if the answer is no, "oops.. our support organisation who are accustomed to questions like 'should this jumper be at slave or master' would probably hate me for getting them 1 million calls asking about network configuration issues, system administration issues etc".
The HD manufacturer would probably in that situation just put on the ethernet interface, additional RAM, verify that it can run some OS'es, then make some OEM deals with a linux server company to design and support the OS and utils that will go into it. But it would still probably be just an experimental launch - even if you can raise the price due to the additional product value, will enough people buy it to warrant putting down energy on it instead of just churning out some more millions of "dumb" drivers ?
Of course, as time goes, the price premium for the manufacturer to integrate a better CPU with cycles left for doing networking stuff (and extra memory) will be so little that they simply can open up the drive specifications to companies who want to take a shot at it. Maybe we're already there, I don't know.
One possible intermediary is to sell a small board that attaches to the bottom of the drive, with a pass-through power connector and a bridge to the IDE port. Would break the 3.5" form factor though.
> JDB. > [who would be surprised if the Ethernet transformer wouldn't be the > dominating factor in the PCB area calculation]
FWIW, the RJ45 connector manufacturers nowadays provide models with integrated transformers. The connector just grows some 5 mm longer.
-Bjorn
- 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/
| |