From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Feb 26 14: 8:14 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from k9.rose.nu (adsl-63-196-10-163.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.196.10.163])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D9C37B4EC
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:08:10 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rose@rose.nu)
Received: from localhost (rose@localhost)
	by k9.rose.nu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA73917;
	Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:06:43 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rose@k9.rose.nu)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:06:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Stephen Rose <rose@rose.nu>
To: Soren Schmidt <sos@freebsd.dk>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Joe Gleason <clash@tasam.com>
Subject: Re: ata-disk ioctl and atactl patch
In-Reply-To: <200102262010.VAA29823@freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10102261404590.73667-100000@k9.rose.nu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Well, for me it's the noise and heat that I'm trying to minimize.  That
and we're out of power here in California.  :-)

Steve Rose


On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Soren Schmidt wrote:

> It seems Stephen Rose wrote:
> > A couple of us on the questions list have asked for a way to spin down =
ide
> > disks when idle.  Is there any chance that this utility could lead to
> > something useful there?
>=20
> Well, of cause it could, but I'm not sure I see the usefullness of
> the spindown at all, a spinup costs several units of idleness power,
> so you have to keep it spun down for long periods to make it worth
> the effort, and you wear significantly more on the mechanics this
> way too...
>=20
> > It seems Scott Renfro wrote:
> > > As I promised on -mobile earlier this week, I've cleaned up my patche=
s
> > > to port the {Net,Open}BSD atactl utility, including a simplistic
> > > ata-disk ioctl.  They apply cleanly against this afternoon's -stable
> > > (including Soren's latest commit bringing -stable up to date with
> > > -current).  I've been running them for some time and they ''work grea=
t
> > > here''.
> > >
> > > Before announcing this in a broader context, I wanted to get a bit of
> > > feedback on the ioctl implementation.  In particular, is it safe to
> > > just do an ata_command inside adioctl() without any further checking?
> > > (e.g., can this cause bad things to happen under heavy i/o load?)
> >=20
> > No its not safe at all, you risk trashing an already running command...
> >=20
> > Anyhow, I have an atacontrol thingy in the works for attach/detach,
> > raid control etc, etc, I'll try to merge this functionality into that
> > (the ioctl's will change etc, but the functionality is nice)...
> >=20
> > -S?ren
> >=20
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> >=20
> > ---
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> >=20
>=20
>=20
> -S=F8ren
>=20


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message