[geeks] New 2.5" SCSI HDs???

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 @ 10:09 -0600, Phil Brutsche said:

> Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> > SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) and SATA (Serial ATA) are mostly the same
> > protocol (same connectors, same command structure), but SATA has many
> > features that are typically only "interesting" on servers and high-end
> > workstations disabled.  As far as I know, you can use SAS devices on
> > SATA buses (and vice-versa), but all of SATA's restrictions come along
> > for the ride (ie: one device per channel, no LUN support, etc.)
> 
> You can use SATA everywhere you can use SAS, but not the other way
> around - SAS drives won't work with SATA controllers.

It would be nice if there was only SAS.

True, SATA is an upgrade from IDE, but now that we have made the move,
it really makes no sense to keep it around in the future.

The controllers are nearly as complex as SAS controllers, and no SATA
drives are capable of making use of a SATA port's bandwidth, so it is
quite wasteful.

Moving everyone to SAS is relatively painless since people's old SATA
drives would continue to work.

Then just have the SCSI market start offering a wider range of models,
and you no longer have any need for (S)ATA at all.

Sure would make life easier.

-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["All of us get lost in the darkness,
dreamers turn to look at the stars" -- Rush ]