Date: 06 Feb 1998 13:17:13 -0600 From: Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> To: "Daniel M. Eischen" <deischen@iworks.interworks.org> Cc: aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Question about cabling. Message-ID: <87sopwpmpy.fsf@nevermore.csres.utexas.edu> In-Reply-To: "Daniel M. Eischen"'s message of "Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:09:10 -0600 (CST)" References: <199802061809.MAA13151@iworks.InterWorks.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel M. Eischen" <deischen@iworks.interworks.org> writes: > It does sound like a cabling problem since shortening the > cable decreases the frequency of lockups. Well, I can't be absolutely certain that it does, but it seems to. I can't easily gather good statistics since that involves locking up the bus entirely for each datapoint, and since I don't know anything that's a reliable trigger. > Placing all the drives on the wide cable should help if it is indeed > a cabling problem. But if were me, I'd like to be able to use both > cables ;-) I agree. Is there any reason with ultra-wide that I shouldn't be able to use both cables? I was under the impression that as long as the total length was under 3 meters, I should be fine. I'm still not sure what to make of the "1 foot minimum separation" recommendation from Adaptec since nearly all the internal cables I've seen violate that. Perhaps they mean external cables... Thanks -- Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87sopwpmpy.fsf>