12 Feb
2007
12 Feb
'07
6:46 p.m.
To say "SAS isn't SCSI" or "FC
isn't SCSI", it wouldn't be taking
things too much further to say "Differential SCSI isn't SCSI".
HVD, yes, I'd agree.
Most of the important benefits of SCSI are in the
command set, not
the type of connectors and voltage levels in use.
Maybe important to you. To me, the most important single benefit of
SCSI is compatability: I plug it in and it Just Works, all the way from
the disk and machines dating from when 120MB was big to stuff bought
new today. (Yes, mixing eras usually forces you to the lowest
performance of any involved device, but the most I've ever needed to
make it work is a passive adapter. Except for HVD, which is why I view
HVD as a bit of a pariah.)
*That* is why *I* like SCSI - and why I don't consider SAS and FC to be
"real" SCSI (and, to a large extent, HVD).
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B