From owner-freebsd-scsi Sun Mar 29 20:42:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02365 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:42:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from garlic.acadiau.ca (root@garlic.acadiau.ca [131.162.2.48]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA02176 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:41:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marc@acadiau.ca) Received: from iceberg (iceberg [131.162.2.91]) by garlic.acadiau.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA15246 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:41:00 -0400 (AST) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:41:33 -0400 (AST) From: Marc Fournier X-Sender: marc@iceberg To: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Adaptec 2940UW causing system hangs... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Morning... I'm slowly going through some of the more recent discussions in the archives about the 2940 controllers, and there seems to be alot of 'theories' bouncing around about reducing the transfer rate from 20Mps to 10Mps, in order to eliminate the problem. 2 questions ... 1. doesn't that defeat the point of UW? 2. *where* is the problem? our drivers or the controller themselves? I'm going to downgrade mine to 10Mps tomorrow when someone gets to the office, but it seems me that this would defeat the purpose of *using* UW if its too much to handle :( Thanks... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message