From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Oct 21 16:48:01 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18760
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (root@gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com [207.113.159.21])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA18733;
          Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from gdonl@tsc.tdk.com)
Received: from sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (root@sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.191])
          by gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id QAA05116; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.194])
	by sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA18441;
	Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gdonl@localhost)
	by salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA09208;
	Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Message-Id: <199710212347.QAA09208@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:47:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: Stefan Esser <se@FreeBSD.ORG>
       "Re: 2.2.2-RELEASE '875 SCSI won't negotiage" (Oct 22, 12:13am)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95)
To: Stefan Esser <se@FreeBSD.ORG>,
        Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Subject: Re: 2.2.2-RELEASE '875 SCSI won't negotiage
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Oct 22, 12:13am, Stefan Esser wrote:
} Subject: Re: 2.2.2-RELEASE '875 SCSI won't negotiage
} On 1997-10-21 08:17 +0200, J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> wrote:
} > As dkelly@hiwaay.net wrote:
} > 
} > > > sd0(ncr0:0:0): WIDE SCSI (16 bit) enabled
} > > > sd0(ncr0:0:0): 20.0 MB/s (100 ns, offset 16)

} > Probably should not.  It should read as ``20 MHz'', this makes no
} > promises about the actual speed.
} 
} Yes, I've been thinking so for quite some time, to.
} But I changed the message to report MB/s, anyway, on
} popular demand :)
} 
} 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?