> I think the key to successfully being able to use Plan 9 commercially > is to use its unique technical advantages to exploit disruptive > economic changes.
works for coraid. > 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. i'll use it as an example. sata and scsi can't be directly compared because sata is an specific physical/data layer that supports the ata 7+ command set*, while scsi is a set of command sets and an a set of physical standards. if you mean that the ata command set is not as good as the scsi command set, i don't think i agree with this. the ata command set is simpler, and still gets the job done. both suffer from bad command formatting, but scsi is worse. ata has 28 bit and 48 bit (sic) commands. scsi has 6, 10, 12, 16 and 32-byte commands). one can find problems with both command sets. if you mean that sata is worse than sas, i think that's a hard sell, too. sata and sas use the same physical connections at the same speeds. there are some data-layer differences, but they seem to me to be differences without distinction. (as evidenced by the aforementioned combined-mode hba.) the main difference between sas and sata is that sas supports dual-porting of drives so that if your hba fails, your drive can keep working. i don't see that as a real killer feature. hard drives fail so much more often than hbas. - erik
