Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:08:35 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: mike@smith.net.au, dburr@POBoxes.com, hardware@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Studded@san.rr.com Subject: Re: best wdc0 flags ? Message-ID: <199804250108.SAA02337@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Apr 1998 02:50:39 %2B1000." <199804201650.CAA05910@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> I thought I did, but my oldest accessible drive (all 400MB of it from > >> 4 years ago) supports them. The probe seems to handle any that don't. > > > >OK. Should we make it the default then? > > In -current. Sure. 8) > >> Setting the multi-block flag is not such a good optimization, since it > >> pessimizes throughput on some drives and it increases interrupt latency. > > > >Can you qualify "some drives" again? The overall performance > >improvement in general use is marked, and it decreases interrupt load > >in the DMA case. > > Old drives. Ok. Do we have general consensus then that the defaults should be: - 32-bit transfers. - multi-block 4, if supported by the drive. ??? -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804250108.SAA02337>