Subject: Re: aix7xxx problems with negotiating "Ultra" speeds....
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/10/1998 02:35:50
[ On Wed, December 9, 1998 at 16:05:03 (-0500), Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: aix7xxx problems with negotiating "Ultra" speeds....
> Let's add one here:
> - if it either coexists with the current system, or *all* host adapter
> and target drivers known to be in use (some are clearly "dead") with
> the current system are ported
> > it will be accepted.
> There appears to be a substantial issue even in FreeBSD (which runs on a
> *lot* less hardware than we do) about "oddball" controllers not being
> supported with CAM. We may be somewhat better off here given the commonality
> of code we've striven to achieve between different platforms using the same
> host adapter chipset, but then again given the variety of platforms and SCSI
> host adapters we support -- we're probably a lot worse off.
Personally I think that fearing the FreeBSD CAM implementation just
because it doesn't support 100% of the hardware NetBSD currently
supports is silly. Even if some hardware is (possibly only temporarily)
"lost" because of the switch, I suspect the gain is still far more
Of course I'm coming at this from the point of view of a user who wants
100% reliability and error handling in the storage subsystem, and I
don't care if that means forcing me onto newer and more trustworthy
Perhaps there really is a way to support "broken" hardware with the old
drivers and still allow the rest of us to get newer reliable and more
flexible drivers on "good" hardware, though in the interests of
correctness and such, I really don't care. PCs *suck* -- who cares if
you have to run 1.3.x or older on broken hardware????
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>