[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:0.148 / U:18.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site