From owner-freebsd-scsi Thu Apr 15 12: 2: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from uni4nn.gn.iaf.nl (osmium.gn.iaf.nl [193.67.144.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD4614EBE for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:01:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wilko@yedi.iaf.nl) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by uni4nn.gn.iaf.nl (8.9.2/8.9.2) with UUCP id UAA24281; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 20:15:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from wilko@localhost) by yedi.iaf.nl (8.9.2/8.6.12) id UAA00842; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 20:03:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Wilko Bulte Message-Id: <199904151803.UAA00842@yedi.iaf.nl> Subject: Re: timed out while idle? In-Reply-To: <19990415090035.03868@uriah.heep.sax.de> from J Wunsch at "Apr 15, 1999 9: 0:35 am" To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 20:03:39 +0200 (CEST) Cc: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG X-Organisation: Private FreeBSD site - Arnhem, The Netherlands X-pgp-info: PGP public key at 'finger wilko@freefall.freebsd.org' X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org As J Wunsch wrote ... > As Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > > > Further, the code that usually causes the disk pack to be > > invalidated is in cam_periph.c:cam_periph_error() where a selection > > timeout causes us to receive an ENXIO error. I believe that > > invalidating the pack is the correct thing to do since we have no > > way of determining if the media or device are the same, but that we > > should be retrying things like selection timeouts in a more sane > > fashion so that invalidations are a rarity. > > I think we've been at this discussion before. IMHO, CAMs action in > this case is not what all the people would expect, and it makes CAM > (which i believe is excellent by design -- no criticism) rather > fragile compared to other operating system. You can't e.g. swap a > SCSI chain terminator while the chain is under heavy load, or it would > invalidate all the disks on it. Compare this to e.g. a Solaris > machine, where you can do this. > > Don't get me wrong, i understand why you implemented it this way (at > least i believe i understand, since i guess that's the behaviour you > needed for Plutotech), and i agree that this is one possible view at > the world. However, i'd like to see it `tunable' in a way where it So a sort of /etc/system with an sd_iotime= or something along these lines? Groeten / Cheers, Wilko _ ______________________________________________________________________ | / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte WWW : http://www.tcja.nl _______________________ Powered by FreeBSD ___ http://www.freebsd.org _____ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message