From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 6 13:43:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA10859 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isbalham.ist.co.uk (isbalham.ist.co.uk [192.31.26.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA10848 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gid.co.uk (uucp@localhost) by isbalham.ist.co.uk (8.8.4/8.8.4) with UUCP id VAA04366; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:29:51 +0100 (BST) Received: from [194.32.164.2] by seagoon.gid.co.uk; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:26:33 +0100 X-Sender: rb@194.32.164.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199706061936.NAA00243@pluto.plutotech.com> References: Your message of "Fri, 06 Jun 1997 11:38:08 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:23:23 +0100 To: "Justin T. Gibbs" From: Bob Bishop Subject: Re: Extremely poor interactive response under heave SCSI load Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 21:34 +0100 6/6/97, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: >Even better hack. Just send an ordered transaction every once in a while >which will flush any "starved" simple-tagged transactions. This means that >you can always keep the queue full. Is that [slipping in an ordered transaction when there's a bunch of unordered transactions 'up the pipe'] actually going to work as desired for all the controllers of interest? -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK