Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:18:31 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADSUP: wd driver will be retired! Message-ID: <19991211231831.B21336@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <199912112148.dBBLmCQ85894@orthanc.ab.ca>; from lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca on Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 02:48:12PM -0700 References: <jClSOIKUnyW42bmsIpvU0c8zbK91@4ax.com> <199912112148.dBBLmCQ85894@orthanc.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 02:48:12PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > >>>>> "Dieter" == Dieter Rothacker <didi@Xterminator.STUDFB.UniBw-Muenchen.de> writes: > > Dieter> Why would you want to define "correct" numbering the > Dieter> non-spread-out numbering? Or did I misunderstand you? I > Dieter> have all my disks as master drives on the channels. Now, > Dieter> when I hook up another disk for backup or maintenance > Dieter> purposes, my numbering is messed up. > > Or worse, on a file server where you lose a low-numbered disk, not > only does that one go away, but everything higher numbered loses as > well. This "feature" does nothing other than introduce a gratuitous > backwards-incompatibility. There is nothing wrong with the "old" scheme. > I've loathed this behaviour since it was introduced into SCSI/CAM, > and would rejoice at its removal. I don't see why one should not wire-down the SCSI devices to whatever one's preference is. This works just brilliantly. But maybe it is that me having a small mountain of StorageWorks hotplug SCSI devices makes me defensive in this respect.. W/ -- Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands - The FreeBSD Project WWW : http://www.tcja.nl http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991211231831.B21336>