Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:05:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@corbulon.video-collage.com> To: scottl@samsco.org (Scott Long) Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi@corbulon.video-collage.com> Subject: Re: speed of a ciss-based pseudo-disk Message-ID: <200504172305.j3HN53SD098019@corbulon.video-collage.com> In-Reply-To: <4262DED7.80907@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Are you asking that someone go implement a 'nominal' speed tester in > the kernel that will accurately determine the speed of each attached > storage device? Scott, I'm asking about a nominal number. If my controller can not talk to the attached drives at U320 and negotiates down to lower speeds, I'd like to know about it. No "speed testers" need to be written for nominal numbers. That, sort of, is the whole point of something being _nominal_. It does not need to be measured, it is (usually) simply written somewhere or easily deduced from something else. If, as Paul Saab responded, even the nominal number is unobtainable for HP/Compaq arrays -- fine. The driver's output confused me, so I asked about its meaning. > Would you demand your money back if the number reported was wrong? Why > does it matter? I don't see, how this question is relevant, but yes, if the cable sold to me as a U320 is only capable of U160, I certainly will ask for my money back. > Your SCSI busses are running at Ultra320, and that is that. How do you know? Do you, actually, see _value_ in your two responses in this thread so far? I'm sure you were trying to help... -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504172305.j3HN53SD098019>