From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat,  7 Mar 2009 10:28:11 -0500
From: "William K. Josephson" <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20090307152811.GA68878@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <20090307143755.GB68357@mero.morphisms.net>
	<6589ec847d45106513de0bf26fdf8be3@quanstro.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6589ec847d45106513de0bf26fdf8be3@quanstro.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b60490fa-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 10:05:44AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> it's kind of funny to call sata "backwards compatability".  if
> things go as you suggest ??? pcie connected, i think we'll all
> long for the day when we could write one driver per hba rather
> than one driver per storage device.

Or perhaps we'll get a new version of sata that has a better
interface.  I think that treating flash as a linear array
of blocks is not the right abstraction.  I'm less interested
in the physical interconnect.

> > The Intel SSD is cheap and slow :-)
>
> pick a lane!  first you argued that they are expensive. ???

Fast SSDs are expensive; Intel SSDs aren't fast :-)

> no.  i agree.  worm storage in general is not a popular topic,
> but the few companies that do use it pay the big bucks for it.

That isn't really enough to keep an industry going.
What has driven flash is volume, the simplicity of
manufacturing it, and the resulting yield.  All
three have driven down the price a lot.

 -WJ