96-277r1 - Proposed Change in QErr for SPC-2
jmcgrath at QNTM.COM
Wed Feb 19 19:39:53 PST 1997
* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at symbios.com), posted by:
* jmcgrath at qntm.com (Jim Mcgrath)
Unless someone can refute Ralph's rationale for all SCSI systems (not just
demonstrate that it is possible to live with QErr=01 in selected
environments), our only consistent alternatives are to prohibit
multi-initiator simple queuing systems, or to accept Ralph's proposal. Of
the two, I think Ralph's proposal is the simplest.
And here I disagree. I think it is perfectly fine for the standard to state
that the behaviour of a simple queing drive in a multiple initiator environment
is vendor unique. There are a lot of cases in the standard today where using
things in a certain combination is not covered explicitly by the standard.
Vendor unique is not bad - it is just vendor unique.
This position is the compromise I am willing to accept. But the whole idea of
basic queueing was to eliminate complicated error recovery scenerios in the
firmware as developed and tested for a drive that is intended to be shipped
into single initiator systems. We have not had multi-initiator support in
our low end SCSI drives for years - and the market has accepted that very
well. This point was discussed extensively in the committee when we made
the original basic queuing decision, and agreed to overwhelmingly.
* For SCSI Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info scsi' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com
More information about the T10