Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:18:31 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADSUP: wd driver will be retired! Message-ID: <19991211231831.B21336@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <199912112148.dBBLmCQ85894@orthanc.ab.ca>; from lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca on Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 02:48:12PM -0700 References: <jClSOIKUnyW42bmsIpvU0c8zbK91@4ax.com> <199912112148.dBBLmCQ85894@orthanc.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 02:48:12PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> >>>>> "Dieter" == Dieter Rothacker <didi@Xterminator.STUDFB.UniBw-Muenchen.de> writes:
>
> Dieter> Why would you want to define "correct" numbering the
> Dieter> non-spread-out numbering? Or did I misunderstand you? I
> Dieter> have all my disks as master drives on the channels. Now,
> Dieter> when I hook up another disk for backup or maintenance
> Dieter> purposes, my numbering is messed up.
>
> Or worse, on a file server where you lose a low-numbered disk, not
> only does that one go away, but everything higher numbered loses as
> well. This "feature" does nothing other than introduce a gratuitous
> backwards-incompatibility. There is nothing wrong with the "old" scheme.
> I've loathed this behaviour since it was introduced into SCSI/CAM,
> and would rejoice at its removal.
I don't see why one should not wire-down the SCSI devices to whatever
one's preference is. This works just brilliantly. But maybe it is
that me having a small mountain of StorageWorks hotplug SCSI devices
makes me defensive in this respect..
W/
--
Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands - The FreeBSD Project
WWW : http://www.tcja.nl http://www.freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991211231831.B21336>