On Sat Mar 7 09:39:38 EST 2009, j...@eecs.harvard.edu wrote: > On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 08:58:42AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > > i think that's why they put them in a 2.5" form factor with a standard > > SATA interface. what are you thinking of? > > No, the reason they do that is for backwards compatibility.
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. new boss, same as the old boss. > > > SSDs are expensive on a $/MB basis compared to disks. The good ones > > > > not as much as you think. a top-drawer 15k sas drive is on the order > > of 300GB and $350+. the intel ssd is only twice as much. if you compare > > the drives supported by the big-iron vendors, intel ssd already has cost > > parity. > > The Intel SSD is cheap and slow :-) pick a lane! first you argued that they are expensive. ☺ > Take a gander at the NetApp NAS filers or DataDomain restorers. so you're saying that these machines don't differentiate between primary cache and their write log (or whatever they call it)? > My point isn't that it is a bad idea, just that it isn't > likely to provide enough business to keep manufacturers > interested. Moreover, for capacity disks will keep on > winning for a long time. They just start to look more > and more like tape. 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. it's always great when the backup media is less reliable than the primary media. - erik
