This message is from the T13 list server.
See embedded comments, please. $ $ -----Original Message----- $ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andre $ Hedrick $ Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 4:40 AM $ To: Gary Laatsch $ Cc: T13 (E-mail) $ Subject: Re: [t13] FW: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13 $ $ This message is from the T13 list server. $ $ Not true, I have current projects to support native SATAPI. $ The humor is lost on the folks who think SAS drives will ever be sold. $ $ There are companies now working on SATA-FC bridges. $ $ There is nobody working on SAS-FC bridges. $ $ T13 product base has always been view in the Enterprise Storage as $ laughable. Yet it is the drive companies themselves who have created the $ sitiuation by responding to customer needs. $ $ Better and more cost effective storage. Now you've got it. SATA = better and more cost effective storage $ $ The evolution of SATA is invisioned to be the poor man's fibre channel. $ To bad the trend setters did not count on the self implosion of SCSI as a $ physical transport. Wrong. It is envisioned to be nothing more than the extension of ATA/ATAPI to a faster, cheaper, more reliable interface. $ $ So in keeping with the failed I2O messaging model for a transport, $ borrowing the clever properties of T11 on the fibre transport, and forcing $ down the pipes a SCSI wrapper to allow all the deadbeat companies who do $ storage management to keep alive is gross. Read the spec. It is not fibre. It is not SCSI. It is ATA/ATAPI on a serial interface. $ $ What is being forced down the committee is to transform a relatively $ simple and easily managed protocol, into an monster mess. ATA/ATAPI is simple and easily managed? How did you earn your consulting fees? :-) $ $ Are dues now going to jump to $10,000 next year as a means to restrict $ input from consultants? Strawman. If dues jump it won't be SATA that causes it. No dues were required to join the SATA user's group. Helpful input is and was always welcome. $ $ Regards, $ $ Andre Hedrick $ LAD Storage Consulting Group $
