Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 5 Mar 2007 15:05 In article <eshesp$8qk_004(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <eshe15$l1t$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066(a)news.individual.net>, > >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >[....] > >>Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh > >>MassivelyWrong one. > > > >I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of > >error but there is a point that I would like to make here. > > > >Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we > >called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the > >electronics used related to disk drives today. > > And one controller could have many devices hanging off it. > Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your > descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction. SCSI controllers can have several devices hanging off them. There are two interfaces per parallel ATA port. Things get a little complicated, depending on exactly what variety of ATA port one is talking about though. At it's simplest ATA is just a buffer from the 8086 bus. Later devices have fully independent busmastering DMA disk ports. > >Today, there is a lot more electronics included in the term "controller" > >mostly because we didn't create a new term to cover the new stuff. The > >bulk of work of the controller of old is now done by the disk drive but > >mother board chip set now has a bunch of this new work to do. The IDE was > >the point where the mother board electronics was the simplest. > > > >I believe that this disagrees with what MissingProng has had to say on > >this subject but should it turn out to agree with him in full or in part, > >I will retract it immediately. > > The term for this paragraph is "disclaimer". ;-) -- Keith
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 4 Mar 2007 17:35 In sci.physics, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:31:37 -0800 <3j7mu2d76vc5eq16p9umeq49cp8kse4msj(a)4ax.com>: > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:08:40 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > >> I always >>get confused when reading either's cache docs. >> > > Not surprising since you don't even know where the drive controller > for an IDE drive is located, and you are so retarded that you think it > is merely a cache. There are two controllers involved. One is attached to the system motherboard, usually through a plastic fitting; the other is part of the drive unit, and presumably includes the on-drive cache. To which were you referring? (The two are of course cabled together.) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's important, it's the ability to DO something with it. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Phil Carmody on 5 Mar 2007 15:45 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <eshe15$l1t$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066(a)news.individual.net>, > >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >[....] > >>Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh > >>MassivelyWrong one. > > > >I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of > >error but there is a point that I would like to make here. > > > >Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we > >called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the > >electronics used related to disk drives today. > > And one controller could have many devices hanging off it. > Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your > descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction. Multiple devices have been possible on PC since the *buses* that the hard disk drives hang off were invented. That's why they were buses. More evident for SCSI than IDE obviously. IDE used the cheapest hack possible to reduce contention issues. SCSI did it properly. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 21:22 In article <eshesp$8qk_004(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eshe15$l1t$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066(a)news.individual.net>, >>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>[....] >>>Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh >>>MassivelyWrong one. >> >>I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of >>error but there is a point that I would like to make here. >> >>Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we >>called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the >>electronics used related to disk drives today. > >And one controller could have many devices hanging off it. >Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your >descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction. Yes, today, electronics is much cheaper so we can take advantage of this. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 21:27
In article <MPG.2056422472aa66b398a06f(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eshesp$8qk_004(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <eshe15$l1t$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066(a)news.individual.net>, >> >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >[....] >> >>Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh >> >>MassivelyWrong one. >> > >> >I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of >> >error but there is a point that I would like to make here. >> > >> >Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we >> >called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the >> >electronics used related to disk drives today. >> >> And one controller could have many devices hanging off it. >> Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your >> descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction. > >SCSI controllers can have several devices hanging off them. "SCSI controller" usually refers to the stuff that is making the SCSI interface go. This shouldn't really be included in the "disk drive controller" term. Things other than disk drives have been hung off SCSI interfaces. Tape drives would be the simplest example of this. The SCSI bus has to be general enough that such things can be done. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |