From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Oct 25 04:05:09 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA29141
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from Octopussy.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (Octopussy.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE [134.95.166.20])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA29131
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from se@X14.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE)
Received: from x14.mi.uni-koeln.de ([134.95.219.124])
	by Octopussy.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14784
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:05:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from se@localhost) by x14.mi.uni-koeln.de (8.8.7/8.6.9) id KAA00722; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 10:35:22 +0200 (CEST)
X-Face: "<d]#=8pzx);RzeqSKI86OVa7=!0/(uRa.+B.9Z9\eNUn@UG?!`y7yt2dFNn%k4'.}](uE%
 yCO)$e&Y1%3EO~ifu6Q-#YUM&JZ't,}JkPnAz,8Dj33u%@GBi%[Y#LHz$]h7a<p4)-jKI7~sKjlP-^
 EvA[G;]v&0]W!EL%shs,{7x0|oqN4YVIs5,NI#,V{9"WF):5&RkOhyj*#-IAG}Tnu;YCF,d
Message-ID: <19971025103522.51922@mi.uni-koeln.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 10:35:22 +0200
From: Stefan Esser <se@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Cc: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: 2.2.2-RELEASE '875 SCSI won't negotiage
References: <se@FreeBSD.ORG> <199710212347.QAA09208@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84
In-Reply-To: <199710212347.QAA09208@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>; from Don Lewis on Tue, Oct 21, 1997 at 04:47:42PM -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On 1997-10-21 16:47 -0700, Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 12:13am, Stefan Esser wrote:

> } > > > sd0(ncr0:0:0): WIDE SCSI (16 bit) enabled
> } > > > sd0(ncr0:0:0): 20.0 MB/s (100 ns, offset 16)

> } If 40MB/s is reported, you still won't be able to get
> } more than some 37MB/s moved, actually, but well, it is
> } the number claimed by the drive and controller vendors,
> } and so it can't be wrong to report it :)
> 
> But isn't this misleading if it's only connected to narrow devices?

Sure, it was, if that number was printed for a narrow device.

But it of course isn't: This is a per device message, and a
narrow device would have 20MB/s in its attach message (while
actually being limited to some 18.5MB/s).

Regards, STefan