Re: libata in 2.4.24?

[Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:18:24PM +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> In article <20031202230216.GB4154@mis-mike-wstn.matchmail.com>,
> Mike Fedyk  <mfedyk@matchmail.com> wrote:
> | On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:34:20PM +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> | > after each O_SYNC write, so that's probably not practical. Clearly the
> | > best solution is a full SCSI implementation over PATA/SATA, but that
> | > would eliminate some of the justification for SCSI devices at premium
> | > prices.
> | 
> | In many ways, that is exactly what SATA is. :)
> 
> Until multiple devices be string are available SATA will have logistical
> problems scaling. The small cable is an advantage running a few drives
> in a box, but a server with 40 drives or so would go from a cable bundle
> out the back, about 5cm by 1 cm, to a real bunch of those little round
> cables running everywhere. Certainly doable, but I think I'd name the
> server "Medusa" if I built it.
> 

Isn't this what SSCSI (Serial SCSI) will be doing also -- one drive one cable?

I'd imagine that you'd have one connection to the enclosure, and the entire
enclosure will look like a single drive.  I've heard of SCSI enclosures like
this (even ones that hold ide drives, but talk scsi to the host).

> I believe SATA-2 will address this, if I may believe what's projected
> for an unwritten standard.

There will probably be many ways to get around any issues that may come up
with SATA until SATA-2 comes out.