[rescue] Macs & IDE vs. SCSI
mcguire at neurotica.com
Sat Apr 12 15:12:34 CDT 2003
On Saturday, April 12, 2003, at 03:46 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> Now just suppose all the work that's been put into developing
> generations of IDE/ATA had been put into improving SCSI instead, and
> building less expensive SCSI hardware. It's interesting to speculate
> what the price/performance of SCSI would be right now. I'm betting
> cost little, if any, more than IDE does.
I agree. But even in the current world, SCSI doesn't *need* much
improving, except for maybe dropping the cost...which is a business
problem, not a technical one.
Improve on Ultra320? Drive mechanics & media can't touch that
transfer rate as it is; the headroom is there to support multiple
drives per bus. Need even more than that? Think FibreChannel...SCSI
protocols over an ultra-high-speed transport.
> I gotta admit, though, it'd be sweet to get rid of all these damned
> ribbon cables and have little tiny 8mm ISDN-ish disk cables instead.
> Imagine how much less cluttered PC cases would be if instead of being
> full of airflow-blocking 50- and 68-pin ribbon cable, you just had an
> input and an output port on each disk and little jumper cables that you
> plugged from drive to drive, with an active terminator plugged directly
> into the last disk's output port.
Well, there's FibreChannel...
Dave McGuire "My belly these days is too substantial
St. Petersburg, FL for most hosiery." -Robert Novak
More information about the rescue