Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Jan 2009 18:47 UTC
SCSI (Small Computer System Interface), often called parallel SCSI, is almost 30 years old and can hardly keep up with the demands of today's IT environment. Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) was developed to address the limitations inherent in SCSI. This article highlights the differences between these two interfaces and points out the attributes that account for the increasing popularity of SAS.
Thread beginning with comment 342761
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-12-15
No, I am sorry. That would be WAY to fast for the (actual) drives throughput on the hardware itself, not even mentioning the interfaces.
3 Gigabit/sec == 300+MB/sec (depending on your source and setup supposedly 322MB/sec w/o EC)
3GigaBytes/sec == at least 24Gigabits/sec without any form of correction
Parallel SCSI has been stuck at "U320" for a while, and it has never been able to really truly been able to sustain (even close to) 320MB/sec.
Hey, lets look at the controllers... oh look at that, models from Adaptec, Mega (et al) all focused on the same chipsets... supporting either SAS or SATAII at 3G-BIT PER SECOND
Lets think on that before we jump.
My Edit... leaving for proof I'm an idiot:
And YES, I now read comment properly. (BAD GREG! Naughty GREG!)
Edited 2009-01-08 22:22 UTC