Article View: comp.arch
Article #1937Re: IPI-2 vs. SCSI
From: Jim Hutchison
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1989 19:33
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1989 19:33
46 lines
2796 bytes
2796 bytes
Lets start by noting that IPI is not a bright-shiny-new interface, but
a set of interfaces which have been in use by folks like Burroughs, Gould,
and IBM for a while now. IPI-2 is akin to a better SMD, and IPI-3 is akin
to a better SCSI.
>[...] I guess Imprimis has announced an
>8in. drive w/ dual read channels capable of 6 MB/s, sustained or
>peak I'm not sure, and a native IPI-2 interface. Not bad :)
Lock 2 heads together, and *poof* HSMD disk technology becomes 6 Mbyte/s
with a new cable/electronics which send byte data instead of
clock/data/control. IPI-2 disks are not limited to 6 Mbyte/s (like SCSI),
they are limited by a "new" number of ~30 Mbyte/s. IPI-3 has a similar
cable/driver based limit.
> But why go with an under-developed interface such as IPI-2 ?
Basis for this statement please?
>SCSI has a lot of software supporting it which implies it is reasonably
>well understood; you can get cheap SCSI protocol IC's that'll go
>5 MB/s; and the prices are lessening as momentum picks up.
Bulk software == well understood, maybe. Is it documentation you lack?
SMD is also well understood, but people are getting tired of the low
bandwidth (<3 Mbyte/s).
> Both IPI and SCSI have upgrades in the planning process. SCSI
>plans to go 40 MB/s (through "wide" and "fast") and IPI is projected
>to go 50 MB/s with a max cable length of 50m when ECL drivers are
>used. Someday IPI may [...]
Good to hear they are both still moving forward. I'm a bit puzzled
by the wide (32bit) and fast SCSIs. They will probably kill the SCSI
market by confusing people. I personally would get miffed if I got
a wide/fast interface and the *wrong* kind of SCSI disk. At the moment
it would appear that IPI-3 has SCSI pegged with its ability to have
a device decide what clock rate it wants for data. This allows for
faster equipment in the future without causing peoples hair to friz
with compatibility problems within the *standard* interface.
As to the comment on single-source IPI chips being grossly expensive,
I'm not to amazed. They've got the market, "why not milk it". When
competition starts, prices whould drop.
/* Jim Hutchison {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!celerity!hutch */
/* Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesman for FPS computing */
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<564@celit.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!seismo!esosun!cogen!celerity!celit!hutchReferences:
<13698@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!seismo!esosun!cogen!celerity!celit!hutch From: hutch@celerity.uucp (Jim Hutchison) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: IPI-2 vs. SCSI Message-ID: <564@celit.UUCP> Date: 22 Aug 89 19:33:30 GMT References: <13698@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Reply-To: hutch@celerity.UUCP (Jim Hutchison) Distribution: na Organization: FPS Computing Lines: 46