From owner-freebsd-scsi Wed Jul 2 17:27:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA03652 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 17:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tok.qiv.com ([204.214.141.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA03647 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 17:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by tok.qiv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with UUCP id TAA09205; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:15:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost) by acp.qiv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA01252; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:12:55 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: acp.qiv.com: jdn owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:12:54 -0500 (CDT) From: "Jay D. Nelson" To: Dan Strick cc: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 2.2.2-RELEASE/Viper anomolies In-Reply-To: <199707020320.UAA04700@math.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Dan Strick wrote: -> ->> Should all devices be parity enabled? -- or none? -> ->All devices should be parity enabled. In most cases, they always ->generate SCSI bus parity and the "parity enable" option just causes ->them to check it. You should always try to check the configuration ->of every SCSI device that you install on a system. Vendors are ->particularly indifferent about enabling parity checking because I've seen that too often. This drive was from SunOS 4.1.1+patches days. [snip] ->than some new problem (e.g. an excessively long SCSI bus operating ->at a faster speed), or perhaps the tape drive has problems with ->synchronous SCSI bus transfers (something else that SS1s and SS1+s Hmm... External cable is 1 meter. (Impedence mismatch?) I'll put it in the case. BTW -- while I said I've had no problems, that only applies when block size is explicitly set to 512. Variable block size is unreliable. Thanks for the feedback. -- Jay ->didn't do by default on their motherboard SCSI bus). -> ->> Would putting it on a controller by itself be a benifit? -> ->I often do this with devices (such as a QIC tape drive) that are ->likely to hog the SCSI bus because the manufacturer doesn't want ->to spend more money on the SCSI interface than is necessary to ->make *his* device run at its full speed. I also like to keep my ->SCSI busses short and splitting them up helps a lot. -> ->Dan Strick ->dan@math.berkeley.edu ->