Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: nonsense on 6 Mar 2007 09:29 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however.
From: Ken Smith on 6 Mar 2007 09:30 In article <990b$45ed7583$4fe701c$6070(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> "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. > >That's as self-serving statement as I've ever seen. > >It is a hard disk controller and more, a superset rather >than "something different" that you'd prefer to make it. [....] >The IDE connection supports CD drives as well as CR-R and >CD-RW drives. IDE can also support tape drives designed >for that purpose. Think Travan. We have already covered the fact that the "disk drive controller" circuits were all on the disk drive it self in the IDE case. The electronics being refered to as the disk drive controller is the electronics that moved into the disk drive when we went from things like the ST506 to the IDE drives. The fact that things like tape drives can connect to the IDE cable proves my point. In the SCSI case all the disk drive controller electronics is still within the disk drive. The thing in the mother board is a SCSI controller. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: nonsense on 6 Mar 2007 09:33 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. It is an advance not unlike many before this.
From: Ken Smith on 6 Mar 2007 09:33 In article <esjjt0$8ss_003(a)s931.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >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: [......] >>>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. Not providing a buggy whip holder in a car is the same sort of trade off. Having multiple disks connected to a single disk drive controller electronics gives absolutely no advantage and a few disadvantages. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 6 Mar 2007 09:37
In article <2dab6$45ed7ada$4fe701c$6184(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: [....] >>>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. > >Yet there is the advantage of speed that massive parallelism >hampers by its sheer bulk. Still a trade off however. Not what BAH is refering to isn't. The change she is disagreeing with didn't start with any ability to do operations between drives without the CPU getting involved. The disk drive controller electronics was shared between two drives but only one drive could operate at a time. It is posible that she has confused the disk drive controller with a thing called a channel controller that was a topic in earlier discussion. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |