12 Feb
2007
12 Feb
'07
10:56 a.m.
On Feb 12, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Well that's true, of course. I was speaking in the context of
someone's idiotic proclamation that "SCSI is dead".
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Indeed,
perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I believe we could
easily consider both SAS and Fibre Channel to be SCSI. They are both
different low-level transport mechanisms for SCSI. The only possible
nit here is that Fibre Channel can also be used as the transport
mechanism for other high-level protocols like IP.
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".
Most of the important benefits of SCSI are in the command set, not
the type of connectors and voltage levels in use.
In the case of keeping old hardware running there is a serious
difference
between SCSI, SAS, FC, HVD-SCSI, and U160/U320-SCSI. There is a
lesser
difference between Narrow SCSI, Wide SCSI, UW-SCSI, and U2W-SCSI.