Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux

[Nathan Hand]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:55:11PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> > : 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?

Because if the drive spoke GigE instead of IDE or SCSI ribbon cable, and
ran Linux, then it's effectively a standalone Linux box.

Imagine hot swappable web server hard disk. Plug your disk straight into
the switch, telnet in, configure apache, upload content, done.

I believe it's possible, but I think Larry's estimates of 50% extra cost 
($200 -> $300) are off the wall. The Itsy shows you can make Linux boxes
small enough, but the pricetag (several thousand $) also shows that it's
economically impractical.

> 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.

Yup. 100mhz Pentium and motherboard is literally $50, including case and
NIC and RAM. Shove a $200 disk inside and I effectively get exactly what
Larry's talking about (hot swappable ethernet interfaced disk drive) but
my version is a bit bigger. Space doesn't concern me. Dollars do.

-- 
Nathan Hand - Chirp Web Design - http://www.chirp.com.au/ - $e^{i\pi}+1 = 0$
Linux users aren't rebelling, we've already won - All Hell Can't Stop Us Now