Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On 13-Feb-00 Larry McVoy wrote:
> 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...

Mark up.  I find it interesting that while people say "SCSI is dead", they're
talking about traditional fat ribbon cable SCSI.  SCSI has bloomed in a
thousand places: USB drives are SCSI-over-USB (my digital camera presents
itself as a SCSI-over-USB device...), irda has SCSI-over-irda, IDE is busily
turning itself into SCSI-over-ATAPI, fibrechannel disks are SCSI over
fibrechannel, etc, etc.

The USB and ATAPI cases show that SCSI must be easy to put into high volume,
low margin products, so there's no reason to think SCSI over <any cheap media>
is any harder/more expensive.

        J