Renaming Command Deadlines (14-107)

Gerry Houlder gerry.houlder at seagate.com
Fri Oct 17 07:20:40 PDT 2014


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1410170_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

My first choice is to keep the "command deadline" label. We have a
definitions section to describe exactly what we mean.
If that option fails, my second choice is "command time limit". Time limit
is an acknowledged synonym for deadline. Again, if folks need more
clarification than that, read the definition of the term.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Paul Suhler <Paul.Suhler at hgst.com> wrote:
>  At Tuesday’s SAM-5 call, I received a recommendation not to use the term
> “command deadline time” because that implied an absolute wall clock
time,
> rather than a duration that begins when the command is received by the
> device server.
>
>
>
> One suggestion was “command processing time limit.”  This could be
> confusing because it’s too close to “command processing timeout,”
which is
> in SPC-4 and is a totally different concept; see the command timeouts
> descriptor in REPORT SUPPORTED OPCODES.  Moreover, “time limit” could
also
> imply a wall clock time.
>
>
>
> Another objection I have is that I’d be replacing three words with four
> and this proposal is wordy enough already.
>
>
>
> How about:
>
>
>
> a)	  Command duration limit (Do we **have** to say “processing” –
can
> it be implicit?)
>
> b)	  Command lifetime limit
>
>
>
> Other suggestions?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *Paul A. Suhler, PhD*
>
> Research Staff Member
>
> HGST Research
> *paul.suhler at hgst.com <paul.suhler at hgst.com>*
> o: 949-476-1180 x275448
>
> m: 949-241-6443
>
> 3001 Daimler St.
> Santa Ana, CA 92705-5812
> www.hgst.com
>
>
>



More information about the T10 mailing list