Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux

[Larry McVoy]

: 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...