Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux | From | Zachary Amsden <> | Date | Sat, 12 Feb 2000 15:55:11 -0800 |
| |
> : 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.
Why? So you can log in to your disk drives and run emacs?
If there was some purpose that running Linux on a drive served, it might justify and extra $100 cost. I can't see any purpose to it. Yes, you could telnet into the thing and view your drive geometry, bad sector list, statistics, etc. You don't need to be running a GP/OS on your disk to get that information.
I would much rather see that $100 going towards more storage capacity and buffering, rather than a CPU running linux. I think a lot of people would agree with me on that one.
-- Zachary Amsden zamsden@engr.sgi.com (650) 933-6919 09U-510 Core Protocols
- 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/
| |