From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261711AbTDKUMi (for ); Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:12:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261743AbTDKUMi (for ); Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:12:38 -0400 Received: from zurich.ai.mit.edu ([18.43.0.244]:53765 "EHLO zurich.ai.mit.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261711AbTDKUMf (for ); Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:12:35 -0400 To: mdresser_l@windsormachine.com CC: John Bradford , "Richard B. Johnson" , , , In-reply-to: (mdresser_l@windsormachine.com) Subject: [ANNOUNCE] udev 0.1 release User-Agent: IMAIL/1.19; Edwin/3.114; MIT-Scheme/7.7.2.pre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Chris Hanson Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:23:46 -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:16:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Dresser On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, John Bradford wrote: > Now, assuming a voltage drop of 0.05V across each cable... > > :-) > > John. > Ah yes, I was going to mention that, but didn't know which way would be better. My instinct tells me the massively parallel, but I could and probably am wrong again. :) Using a tree (what you are calling massively parallel) for distribution produces a uniform voltage drop for all of the devices, and has a better worst-case voltage drop than a serial chaining distribution. The serial chain has different voltage drops for each pair of disks, depending on how far down the chain they are, but the worst case is very bad. The reason is that the tree has O(log N) depth, and the serial chain has O(N) depth. Chris