[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux
    > : 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 (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
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.018 / U:15.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site