From owner-freebsd-scsi Mon Apr 15 14:45:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from aslan.scsiguy.com (aslan.scsiguy.com [63.229.232.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7818337B400 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scsiguy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aslan.scsiguy.com (8.11.6/8.11.5) with ESMTP id g3FLih983892; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:44:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from gibbs@scsiguy.com) Message-Id: <200204152144.g3FLih983892@aslan.scsiguy.com> To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is there a reason that da should *not* drive type STORAGE ARRAY In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:41:26 PDT." Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:44:43 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >Whilst dorking with an HP XP-512 storage arrage array on Fibre Channel, I >found that it defaults to type STORAGE ARRAY (not DIRECT ACCESS). However, the >DIRECT ACCESS commands work fine. > >Is there a reason why da(4) should *not* drive devices of type STORAGE ARRAY? Fear of the unknown. What differentiates a STORAGE ARRAY from any other DIRECT ACCESS device? Is the assumption that they are essentially the same always valid? -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message