RE: Multiple JAZ drives on servers?
Jon,
Consider the inferences one could make from your point:
>Glenn, while every new OEM is important, I just don't
>see much of a need for removable storage for workgroups.
>Quite the opposite - the need is for stuff to be online
>all the time. It's just not practical to have removable
storage on a server.
>For example, when CD-ROMs first started being put onto
>servers, a lot of companies put on on drive, and they
>changed the CD as needed. This was not practical, and
>you usually see stacks of CD-ROM drives now.
If your analogy holds, then wouldn't the logical conclusion
to draw from it be that future servers would have "stacks of"
JAZ drives on them, rather than no JAZ drives at all? For
reasonably dynamic workgroups, maintaining the contents on
the server would be a whole lot easier if you gave each
project a number, had a stack of JAZ drives to handle as
many projects as your workgroup managed at one time, and
simply swapped out the cartridges with completed projects
and swapped in those with new projects. It'd beat constant
hard-drive/array maintenance chores. There'd be as many
JAZ cartridges as there were projects. Yesyesyes!
If your analogy were to support your claim that there
isn't "much of a need for removable storage for workgroups,"
then it'd have to say that some workgroups tried a CD-ROM
drive on their servers, but nowadays you usually see no
CD-ROM drives at all on such servers. It's just a case
of Logic 101, isn't it?
Cheers, Tom (long IOM) |
