Question on unmapping rules

Gerry Houlder gerry.houlder at seagate.com
Wed Oct 20 11:22:52 PDT 2010


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1010200_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi gang,
A question has been posed about how to handle the mapped/ unmapped state of
LBAs when the capacity of a drive is reduced (e.g., using MODE SELECT with a
block descriptor that reduces the maximum capacity). I can't find any words
in SPC-4 or SBC-3 that explicitly address this case.
If the no longer accessible LBAs (e.g., ones above the new max address but
below the old max address) were mapped, should the remain mapped or are they
permitted to be unmapped? I think the handling is obvious if those LBAs were
already unmapped (they can remain unmapped) but the previously mapped case
is not so obvious. Any opinions?
Should there be a proposal to add this handling to SBC-3?



More information about the T10 mailing list