Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:12:54 -0500 (CDT) From: "Jay D. Nelson" <jdn@qiv.com> To: Dan Strick <dan@math.berkeley.edu> Cc: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 2.2.2-RELEASE/Viper anomolies Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970702190736.1205A-100000@acp.qiv.com> In-Reply-To: <199707020320.UAA04700@math.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Dan Strick wrote: -> ->> Should all devices be parity enabled? -- or none? -> ->All devices should be parity enabled. In most cases, they always ->generate SCSI bus parity and the "parity enable" option just causes ->them to check it. You should always try to check the configuration ->of every SCSI device that you install on a system. Vendors are ->particularly indifferent about enabling parity checking because I've seen that too often. This drive was from SunOS 4.1.1+patches days. [snip] ->than some new problem (e.g. an excessively long SCSI bus operating ->at a faster speed), or perhaps the tape drive has problems with ->synchronous SCSI bus transfers (something else that SS1s and SS1+s Hmm... External cable is 1 meter. (Impedence mismatch?) I'll put it in the case. BTW -- while I said I've had no problems, that only applies when block size is explicitly set to 512. Variable block size is unreliable. Thanks for the feedback. -- Jay ->didn't do by default on their motherboard SCSI bus). -> ->> Would putting it on a controller by itself be a benifit? -> ->I often do this with devices (such as a QIC tape drive) that are ->likely to hog the SCSI bus because the manufacturer doesn't want ->to spend more money on the SCSI interface than is necessary to ->make *his* device run at its full speed. I also like to keep my ->SCSI busses short and splitting them up helps a lot. -> ->Dan Strick ->dan@math.berkeley.edu ->
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970702190736.1205A-100000>