> Then they decided to do come up with the successors to SCSI and PATA and > decided that serial would be better than parallel. SAS would be the > successor to SCSI in terms of being the expensive, fast, and reliable > hardware, and SATA would be the successor to PATA in terms of being > cheap. > > If I understand correctly, SAS is just SCSI over a low-level serial > connection. SATA is basically a dumbed-down SAS. SATA uses a > restricted SCSI command-set, which means that SATA electronics are
This reminds me that a SAS Controller can drive a SATA drive. Not sure if it is in all cases, but BYU has some machines that have this configuration. Robert -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
