letter ballot comment on clause 4.15

Penokie, George George.Penokie at lsi.com
Tue Oct 1 14:45:55 PDT 2013


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1310017_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Gerry,
Those two a,b lists have been there a long time. They describe two different
(although similar) conditions and as a result the ASCQ that is returned is
different between the two lists.
The first list relates to power to the non-volatile cache becoming degraded
resulting in an ASCQ of: WARNING - DEGRADED POWER TO NON-VOLATILE CACHE. 
Note in this case the cache is still non-volatile at least for some
vendor-specific time.
The second list is for when the cache is no longer non-volatile (e.g., the
power is now too low to maintain any information) resulting in an ASCA of:
WARNING - NON-VOLATILE CACHE NOW VOLATILE.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry Houlder
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 4:06 PM
To: T10 Reflector
Subject: letter ballot comment on clause 4.15
In SBC-3 rev. 35j, clause 4.15, there is a large block of text regarding
volatile cache becoming non-volatile that is duplicated.
On page 41, there is an a)b) list that describes reporting options for a
non-volatile cache that is becoming volatile. The exact same a)b) list
appears near the top of page 42. it is unclear to me which of these lists
(and introductory sentence) should be deleted. That depends on whether some
of the other surrounding text is intended to be before or after this list.



More information about the T10 mailing list