Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux

Zachary Amsden (zamsden@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com)
Sat, 12 Feb 2000 15:55:11 -0800

> : 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  zamsden@engr.sgi.com  (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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/