Ric Messier wrote:
>
> > Forget about this! It seems You've never heard about both of these
> > architectures.
>
> Please back up that comment with a little more than conjecture. I am
> familiar with both architectures. I am not intimately familiar, though.
> Please provide the list with some specific documents backing up your
> assertion. docs.sun.com has a LOT of documents in it. Hard to say which ones
> you are claiming as being authoritative on this issue. It would have struck
> me that moving toward what is closer to an industry standard (cheaper
> components for users who don't want to pay Sun's lie down and rape me rates)
> would have been a good marketing decision and not necessarily a bad
> technical one.
>
Ok. I didn't want to underestimate Your knowledges. I actually wanted
You to take a closer look at the architectures before judging them. The
page I mentioned was:
http://docs.sun.com:80/ab2/coll.28.19/SBUSPCICMP/@Ab2PageView/215?Ab2Lang=C&Ab2Enc=iso-8859-1
(and, actually, this is the only document with comparison of the two
buses, there)
That is clear comparison of SBUS and PCI architecture given by SUN. You
can notice that mostly there are no diffs (according to Sun). But read
carefully the "Protocol (Cycles)", "Bus Arbitration" and "Latency"
sections of the document. And then, again, try to think about the
question why SBUS is still being used in high end servers instead of
PCI...
Pavel Svika.
> Ric Messier
> Network Security Analyst
> GTE Internetworking
> powered by BBN
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
