Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:03:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com> Cc: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is there a reason that da should *not* drive type STORAGE ARRAY Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0204151449470.62590-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <200204152144.g3FLih983892@aslan.scsiguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > >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? Gee- I dunno. I've never really played with one. The spec (SCC2) is a bit ambiguous- it appears to support all the commands you'd want for a DIRECT ACCESS device (but does not explicitly list READ(6,10), WRITE(6,10) or FORMAT)- but also says: The model assumes all the SCSI peripheral devices controlled withuin a SCSI storage array are either fixed block or variable block devices. Considering that the only STORAGE ARRAY type devices I know of are disk devices, I'd say it's *moderately* safe to assume that da(4) should drive them. Let's say that it accrues better to FreeBSD to drive them out the door then mis-drive a device that nobody has seen yet ;-). -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0204151449470.62590-100000>