From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4f34febc0904190058u1507f60fldc51ab3eab1f09fe@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:43:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4f34febc0904190843u3337e22bn6472cbc26122fb7@mail.gmail.com> From: John Barham To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] "FAWN: Fast array of wimpy nodes" (was: Plan 9 - the next 20 years) Topicbox-Message-UUID: e929b208-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> Economics beats technology every time (e.g., x86/amd64 vs. >> MIPS/Itanium, Ethernet vs. Infiniband, SATA vs. SCSI) so >> don't try to fight it. > > if those examples prove your point, i'm not sure i agree. > > having just completed a combined-mode sata/sas driver, > scsi vs ata is is fresh on my mind. =A0i'll use it as an example. To clarify, I meant that given X vs. Y, the cost benefits of X eventually overwhelm the initial technical benefits of Y. With SATA vs. SCSI in particular, I wasn't so much thinking of command sets or physical connections but of providing cluster scale storage (i.e., 10's or 100's of TB) where it's fast enough and reliable enough but much cheaper to use commodity 7200 rpm SATA drives in RAID 5 than "server grade" 10k or 15k rpm SCSI or SAS drives. John