Does ZBC need a VPD page?
gerry.houlder at seagate.com
Mon Oct 6 12:26:59 PDT 2014
Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1410062_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
I don't think we neglected that possibility. Clause 4.2.1 of ZBC says that
"The entire capacity of a zoned block device is organized into a set of
contiguous, non-overlapping zones." This tell me that every LBA within the
capacity of the zoned block device is a member of one and only one zone.
Only LBAs greater than the last LBA on the device would fall outside that
definition. i think we already know what the response is for commands that
request an LBA beyond the capacity of the drive. However, it wouldn't hurt
to repeat it again for the REPORT ZONES command.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Joe Breher <Joe.Breher at hgst.com> wrote:
> In our rush to adopt 14-212, we also neglected to discuss the possibility
> that the LBA in the ZONE START LBA field may not be a member of any zone.
> Yes, a device may, by current proposals, have a disjoint zone map. At the
> very least, this hastily-adopted proposal will need to be amended to define
> handling for such an error condition.
> Joe Breher
> (478) 2-Breher
> (478) 227-3437
> *This e-mail may contain confidential or legally privileged information
> of HGST. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us
> immediately by responding to this e-mail and then deleting it from your
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Ralph Weber wrote:
> Based on the ZBC interface simplification ideas introduced for the
> REPORT ZONES command in 14-212 (see
> http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=14-212r0.pdf), some WD engineers
> have asked whether additional reductions in complexity might be
> accomplished by moving the contents of the Zoned Block Device VPD page to
> the amply spacious header of the REPORT ZONES parameter data.
> To this end, a detailed proposal has been uploaded for review during
> Monday's ZBC call:
> All the best,
More information about the T10