Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:23:37 -0700
From:      "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com>
To:        mjacob@feral.com
Cc:        audit@freebsd.org, "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org>, Gerard Roudier <groudier@club-internet.fr>
Subject:   Re: a couple of minor but important changes to SCSI error handling 
Message-ID:  <200102110523.f1B5NbO10383@aslan.scsiguy.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:05:03 PST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102101753560.7694-100000@zeppo.feral.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
>First is scsi_all.c:

This looks fine.  I also verified that the new error recovery code that
Ken is reviewing right now also gets this right.

>Second is scsi_da.c:

...

>10 retries with a .5 second delay between each is still only 5 seconds. 10
>retries might be more appropriate to a SAN environment with at least a couple
>of seconds of different initiators spasming the loop.

Depending on the error, I don't know that we would necessarily delay or not
here.  If an initiator is spamming the loop, what does the peripheral driver
see?  A command timeout?  Something reported as a "selection timeout"?  If
you can be more specific, perhaps we can make the da error handler smarter
so that certain types of errors get additional retries (similar perhaps to
how we do a series of TURs for some errors in cam_periph_error()).

--
Justin



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102110523.f1B5NbO10383>