Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Mar 2007 06:36 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. 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. For some reason, I thought SCSI was daisy chained which isn't a win for some kinds of gear setups. > >> >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". > >;-) > I still have ours in my head..."this is not to be construed as a committment of Digital...." When used in front of a DECUS session, it always got a laugh. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Mar 2007 06:39 In article <esij9m$9en$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. This isn't a feature. This kind of restriction evolved because the gear was cheap. Removing the parallelism of hardware pathways was the trade off. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Mar 2007 06:41 In article <gonpu25k0hbm4i23eed5r63lin4v3ll5er(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>And one controller could have many devices hanging off it. > > > Nope. MFM as well as ESDI carried only two drives per channel. SCSI >is the exception, and has always carried many "ports" per channel. >That is due to the fact that the interface, SCSI, is meant for more >than hard drives. Once upon a time, controllers had many diskdrives and/or magtape drives hanging off them. This gave the installation the freedom to add drives or remove drives without having to replace the whole string. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Mar 2007 06:42 In article <2snpu2dlcklvtjputnd3pd5fv75cap3l3g(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your >>descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction. > > > More proof that you are clueless. I am thinking about where the biz is going to have to go when the only way people can do their finances is via computers systems installed in their abodes. /BAH
From: MassiveProng on 6 Mar 2007 07:43
On Tue, 06 Mar 07 11:33:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > The consensus of bit gods is that both sides >are wrong. So why should I use Wikipedia for a reference of >definitions when I know they are wrong and are not likely to >be corrected anytime soon, if at all. You're an idiot, and neither are you a bit god, nor are anyone you have given this title to. Obviously. |