|
|
|
| Authored by: complex_number on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
You are probably right. It was 30yrs agoe that I got anywhere near the SCSI
specs.
However, most early implementations were single ended. Even if the H/W allowed
multiple initiators the software (from companies like Adaptec) didn't.
By the time SCSI got itself sorted out (Ultra Wide Differential) others had
upped to bar and it was too little too late. Still if my failing memory served
me right, there were even some implementations where you could run a network
over SCSI if you so desired.
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
It didn't even matter if it was "single ended" or double ended or
differential.
All that refers to is whether the termination was on the initiator at the end of
the SCSI chain.
Adaptec was the first company I read about to eliminate it as a fixed
termination - it was a jumper on the controller.
It was also the first to allow multiple initiators by not having a fixed
address.
For these reasons, TCP/IP over SCSI was first implemented using Adaptec
controllers. As I recall, the TCP addressing had to be in a configuration file
for each node because there was no "broadcast" capability to build ARP
tables from.
Differential SCSI was to allow longer cables... nothing else (well, allowing 16
targets instead of 8 but that required longer cables...)
I have even seen guides for HA using shared SCSI - best with dual attached
controllers, but single attached worked too.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Yup. - Authored by: greed on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 09:10 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
