Talk:SCSI

How SCSI works

I deleted the section HOW PARALLEL SCSI WORKS due to it conveying no useful information to the reader. At one time, there was a similar section that summarized the various SCSI phases and what happened during each one. However, the uneducated Internet monkeys got to it, deleted the content that was worthwhile and injected irrelevant crap, such as cable signals.

Also, the SCSI command protocol is independent of the bus architecture. The eight phases are the same in all cases, so a title such as HOW PARALLEL SCSI WORKS is just plain wrong.

I am increasingly viewing the making of lucid contributions to Wikipedia as a huge waste of time, in that so much uneducated editing occurs, even in technically arcane subjects. The hacking up of this article by people who think they know SCSI, but evidently don't, is yet another example of the basically flawed premise of Wikipedia. It's referred to as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and therein lies the problem. Anyone can edit anything, whether they know anything or not. In the world of computers, SCSI expertise, as well as a neutral perspective, is a scarce commodity, which is patent in reading this article.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I share your concern about uninformed editors, but I am not sure I agree with u that the section has no useful information to the reader. Perhaps renaming it to HOW SCSI WORKS (yr point being it works the same regardless of the bus) and getting rid of irrelevancies might have been a better approach. I do think there is useful information in describe the protocol states. Comment? Tom94022 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As it was written, HOW PARALLEL SCSI WORKS conveyed no useful information. A section titled HOW SCSI WORKS could be useful if written by one who is truly an expert on the subject. There was such a section at one time that summarized the eight protocol states without injecting a lot of drivel. I may search through the history and see if I can resurrect it, but, as I said above, this whole Wikipedia thing is taking on an odiousness in my mind. The doctrine of (mostly) unrestricted editing access has resulted in many non-NPV edits, and in many cases, introduction of totally wrong information. I don't see anyone trying to get a handle on this problem, and I am tired of seeing my edits steamrollered by punks with limited knowledge and even more limited writing skills.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Move SCSI#Parallel SCSI to Parallel SCSI

Since there's also a comprehensive Parallel SCSI page, I'd like to move most of this page's Parallel SCSI section there and just keep a summary. IMHO this page should focus on SCSI in general. Any objections? Zac67 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

At the same time I suggest the SCSI#Interfaces and SCSI#Cabling sections should be merged with subsections for each of the SCSI embodiments, linked to more exhaustive articles. Tom94022 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Outdated

The SCSI Express stuff and SBC-4 are some obvious lacunae. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Link rot

Myusernamewastoosimilar-apparently (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC) myusernamewastoosimilar-apparently 15-04-2019. Hi. Sorry if i've got it wrong. I'm new to this. The link in refererence 15 in the article is dead.(hxxp://h30097.www3.hp.com/docs/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V40F_HTML/MAN/MAN7/0003____.HTM) There's not even a redirect from HP as it doesen't get reached. Probably other dead links too. I don't have an alternative link for reference 15. So what happens?

Link rot is quite frequent unfortunately. Have you tried the [http:archive.org Wayback Machine]? --Zac67 (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No timeframe for usage

I came here wanting to know whether SCSI is obsolete or still in use, but found hardly anything. I'd say any addition on this matter would be welcome. Cheers. --uKER (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

SCSI is more popular than ever, see SCSI#Modern SCSI. If you refer to Parallel SCSI (SPI), I've just added some text to its decline to SCSI#Parallel interface. --Zac67 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

SAS is certainly a current and viable interface but "more popular than ever" is not so clear. I'd like to see a RS on, for example, a ratio today of SATA/SAS HDD/SSD versus say ATA/P-SCSI HDD in the 1990s. I'll look for something and then maybe we can add text to the article. Tom94022 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to SAS (alone), but to the SCSI family in general. I've searched for a source but couldn't find a usable one. --Zac67 (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK most of the serialized versions of SCSI use SAS or SATA drives (HDD or SSD) behind a converter/controller. If you want to say something along the lines of "the SCSI protocol in a serialized form such as SAS has replaced parallel SCSI in current applications," I don't think anyone could object. Tom94022 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)