Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux

From: Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Date: Sun Feb 13 2000 - 17:04:38 EST


: Again, I'm not talking about protocols. I'm addressing the argument that an
: STP-capable drive is somehow fundamentally different from a SCSI-capable
: one, since that's the argument that keeps being raised against this idea.
: I'm talking about the controller board, not the details of communication.

OK, I think I get it. Your point is that SCSI is similar in complexity
to STP so the fact that SCSI exists says that drives with STP (and
perhaps Linux) are pretty much a done deal. Is that it? If so, excuse
my slow brain, it takes me a while sometimes.

It's a good point, the only flaw is that SCSI drives are way more expensive
than IDE drives. The question is if that is inherent or just mark up...

-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:26 EST