Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:31:57 -0400 From: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com> To: 'Scott Long' <scottl@freebsd.org>, Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Cc: "'aic7xxx@freebsd.org'" <aic7xxx@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: AIC7902 SCSI aborted command Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533702742115@mail.sandvine.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Scott Long [mailto:scottl@freebsd.org] > Wilko Bulte wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:10:15PM -0400, Don Bowman wrote: > > > >>From: Justin T. Gibbs [mailto:gibbs@scsiguy.com] > >>>need larger spacing). If your cable is shorter than this, > you might > >>>consider trying something longer. > >> > >>Me & my trusty ruler re-measured the cable, and straightened out, > >>it is 10.4" tip to tail, which matches the spec. I was foolishly > >>thinking of the folded length. > > > > > > It isn't too folded I hope? In the sense that you sometimes > > find flatcables stashed in miniscule cutouts in cases etc. Not > > too good for signal integrity either. > > > > Except in cases where you need to slip through a tight slot and only a > flat cable will do, the new-fangled round u320 cables are superior to > their flat counterparts. Correct me if i'm wrong, but for a single device on a chain, they are equivalent. The round cable is really just the flat cable untwisted, and its got the same amount of flat length @ each end. I can believe the round ones are better for several drives on a chain. --don
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533702742115>