[Gllug] re: SCSI vs SATA

[Chris Bell]

On Sat 12 Jun, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 01:11, Nix wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Tom Fairbairn mused:
> > > With a serial protocol, you can embed the clock in the data signal.
> > 
> > But, er, you can do exactly the same with a parallel protocol: you just
> > need to have (multi-bit) clock pulses every n-bits-per-wire and buffer
> > at both ends, syncing on the clock pulses. Unless the individual lines
> > get seriously out of sync, you'll win.
> > 
> > This is *old*, obvious stuff, so obviously it's been considered and
> > rejected. What am I missing?
> 
> Call me a cynic, but I strongly suspect that the drive towards serial
> protocols has more to do with cost than performance.....
> 
> Mike.
> 
   It would also be difficult to make backwards compatible. There are plenty
of ways of sending self clocking data with just intermittent clock pulses,
often used for writing binary data to tape or hard disc, the problem is
finding a universal (non-proprietary?) standard.

-- 
Chris Bell

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug