[rescue] Various machines for sale

[Joshua Boyd]

On 1/8/25 15:43, Mouse via rescue wrote:
>>> As a technical geek, I prefer SCSI too.  I'm sad at how close to
>>> dead it appears to be....
>> SCSI lives on quite well in FC and SAS?  They are both built totally
>> upon parallel SCSI, which is what I assume your statement implies is
>> dead.  I have datacenters chock full of SAS and FC.
> Neither one is parallel, right?  As I understand them, they look like
> SCSI once you get up to the packetized commands and responses, but
> nothing like it below that.
>
> The major reasons I prefer SCSI amount to "simplicity".  Like USB
> versus real serial ports: I can interface to a serial port using
> discretes (though a little SSI helps); I can count the transistors
> used.  It's really hard to speak USB without thousands-to-millions of
> transistors.  (Admittedly, USB can do more than a serial port.  This is
> most relevant when trying to do the simple sort of task that a serial
> port can serve for.  It's a little bit like firing up a full Lisp
> engine to add 3 and 4.)
>
> In SCSI's case, the protocol is complex enough that the comparison
> isn't so clear-cut, but the basic pattern I see is more or less the
> same.  Have I misunderstood?

Were you counting the transistors used for Ultra-160 or Ultra-320 SCSI?

If you want speed things are going to get more complicated, and the 
belief was that at a certain point making serial faster is easier than 
making parallel faster.  If you don't want more speed, old SCSI is still 
there.