Originally Posted By: mlord
And the IDE drives are not the issue here anyway.

Fair enough. I saw the 130gb and due to some other distractions thought it was drive size limits he was wanting to be better. Leave it to the geeky mindset to get distracted on the little details of why instead of how to address Hodge's concerns smile

Originally Posted By: mlord
SCSI is no better than IDE. Both protocols have had to add extensions to increase the number of addressable units on a drive. The difference is that SCSI has had to do this three times thus far, whereas IDE only had to extend it once twice ("LBA", then "LBA48").

Can you provide a citation on the SCSI side, because I am curious about this. My understanding is that also eliminating all the crappy BIOS limitations, SCSI's initial implementation in 1981 from the Shugart Associates System Interface specs had a 1GB limit. (Due to the 6 byte CDB allowing a 21 bit LBA). The 10 byte CDB introduced in 1987 bumped the LBA to 32 bit and to a 2TB limit. SCSI then jumped to LBA 64, bumping the limit to ~ 8 ZB

I also thought IDE started with a 22 bit LBA, presenting a 2GB limit before LBA28 jumping it to 128GB. Also thought IDE didn't fully switch to LBA until the mid 90s, so not sure what limits were in place in the initial IDE standard.