Talk:HIPPI

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Apples to oranges?[edit]

Comparison between HIPPI and SCSI-3 is not correct as they neither overlap in time, nor in target markets. In mid-1990s when HIPPI was almost dead Ultra SCSI-3 (20 MBps) just came out. SCSI-3 was used in low-end ("PC") and mid-range (RISC) servers/workstations while HIPPI was almost two orders of magnitude faster being also two orders of magnitude more expensive, and therefore was living in the supercomputing niche (see IBM Announcement Letter 193-200 dated July 13, 1993).

Displacement of HIPPI due to technical superiority of SCSI or FC is ridiculous. The so called Ultra SCSI-3 ("Narrow") was 8-bit wide, was achieving 20 MBps, and was limited to cable lenght less than 1 meter within the box. Ultra Wide SCSI-3 (16-bit, 40 MBps) was considered cost-prohibitive, and was used in multi-processor servers. Differential Ultra Wide SCSI-3 (later known as HVD) was allowing cables to run up to 12m at even higher costs. Similarly FC at that time was running at 266 Mbps (27 MBps). --91.92.29.19 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit apples to oranges...[edit]

Lots of interfaces are proposed, used in some specialized niche, never catch on in the wider world, and die off.

The guy who wrote "apples to oranges?" is right: it's not necessary to invoke SCSI standards that came many years after HIPPI to explain why HIPPI died off. It was a very specialized, high-cost connection for one tiny corner of the performance computing market. Eventually commodity stuff caught on and surpassed and replaced HIPPI... like every other interface since the dawn of mankind has been replaced by newer cheaper stuff.

I always thought that HIPPI was somehow the big brother of IPI but have no proof of it :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by N3QE (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so the article needs to be fixed. My problem is that although it might have been first designed as a storage (disk access) connection technology, (indeed using IPI as its storage payload) it was also used for TCP/IP heavily. So I would give follow-ons to include Fibre Channel, Infiniband or ten gigabit Ethernet or other cluster interconnects. W Nowicki (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HIPPI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916055443/http://www.hnf.org/faqs.htm to http://www.hnf.org/faqs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]