Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux | Date | Sat, 12 Feb 2000 15:22:56 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> |
| |
: > While it is entirely possible that you are correct, I think in this case : > you are mistaken. I've been in contact with <insert unnamed disk company> : > and they are working on this sort of technology as we speak. My personal : > belief is that _ALL_ of the drive companies are looking hard at things which : > add value to the disk drives, because the margins are very low and they are : > looking for something that could drive 'em back up. A disk drive which is : > also a Linux machine is pretty interesting. It has people like Cobalt : > squarely in the cross hairs. Instead of a $1500 box which takes up 2U, : > you can have 8 $300 boxes in the same space, with 8x the performance. : : While it certainly is interesting, I can't see any other reason for running : Linux on a disk drive. Linux is far too heavy for an embedded marketplace, : and it really doesn't make sense to run it there.
In your opinion, perhaps. That's not a universally accepted view.
The internet appliance market is hot and getting hotter. People really like single purpose devices. If I could get a computer for the cost of a disk drive plus a bit, I'd use for firewalls, web and file servers, etc. It's a very useful concept.
: How you can have an operating system that : runs well on single cpu workstations, scales up to 16-64 cpus
Perhaps SGI thinks it is a good idea to scale Linux to 64 processors. that point of view would indicate that noone at SGI has learned a damn thing from the unadulterated mess you call IRIX. Well, I worked there, and I learned that it is a really stupid idea to try and scale a single OS past about 4-8 processors.
: What is the point of adding a general-purpose OS/CPU/memory system to a disk : when everything can be done with a couple ASICs much faster and cheaper? The : memory footprint that Linux takes could instead be used for valuable disk : cache. : : Maybe if you are talking about huge disk cages, and the cost was amortized : over a bunch of disks it would be feasible, but if you are talking about : single drives, this is sheer madness.
To you, perhaps. I'll tell you this: I run a software business on Linux. I can get 20GB drives for $200. If I could get 20GB drives with Linux running on them for $300, I'd be buying them like cupcakes.
- 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/
| |