Just so everyone knows...these aren't ancient drives I'm talking
about. One is a 30GB Maxtor 5T030H3, less than two years old
IIRC, and the other is a 30GB IBM-DTLA-307030 purchased about
six months ago.
---scott
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:07 am, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> No that is wrong to force all other drives to under perform
> because on one. If you are going to impose 255 then pushi it
> back to 128 were it is a single scatter list. This issue has
> bugged me for years and now that we know the exact model we
> apply an exception rule to it.
>
> This is one silly bug that I have heard about.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 12 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > > So lets dirty list the one drive by Paul G. and be done.
> > > Can we do that?
> >
> > Who cares, really? There's not much point in doing it, we're
> > talking 248 vs 256 sectors in reality. I think it's a _bad_
> > idea, lets just keep it at 255 and avoid silly drive bugs
> > there.
> >
> > --
> > Jens Axboe
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:30 EST