Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:03:01 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: Scott <scottl@pooker.samsco.home> Subject: Re: Ongoing U320 AIC7902 Seagate ST318453LW issues, SCB timed out Message-ID: <3F31DD85.6090801@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20030806213643.F74720@root.org> References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C853370274216B@mail.sandvine.com> <1695190000.1060183917@aslan.scsiguy.com> <20030806093347.N73637@root.org> <20030806123207.F4081@pooker.samsco.home> <20030806213643.F74720@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Lawson wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Scott wrote: > >>On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Nate Lawson wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>>>I offer this patch to make a loader tunable out of the maximum >>>>>tags supported. >>>> >>>>It should be a cam tunable. >>> >>>Terse. I think he means it should be "kern.cam.ahd%d.max_tags" >> >>I'll go out on a limb and suggest 'kern.cam.da%d.max_tags" or something >>similar, as this will be useful for more than just the Adaptec chip. > > > Max tags is a property of cam (i.e. cam_sim_alloc()) and thus not a scsi > (da(4)) issue. > > -Nate Not neccesarily. As Justin pointed out, having global and per-device settings are both useful. One could have a bus full of well-behaving Fujitsu drives, but have one ill-behaving Seagate. Why penalize the whole system? Cam is designed to recognise both controller and device tag limits. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F31DD85.6090801>