Consideration of 2/4/7, 2/4/8
David.Walp at microsoft.com
Wed Nov 1 15:03:25 PST 2006
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* David Walp <David.Walp at microsoft.com>
Thank you for taking your time in making this proposal.
If I understand correctly, a initial version of this proposal was
discussed at the last Mt Fuji meeting. Ravinder Thind from Microsoft
was in attendance at that meeting and he expressed deep concern about
this potential direction.
We, including Ravinder Thind, David Burg and Henry Gabryjelski, have
studied your proposal further and our concerns still exist. Although
this proposal may solve a particular problem, we believe that it will
have the very large negative effect on the existing software
applications. We further believe going forward with this proposal is
not the best thing for the overall industry.
If this proposal goes forward, drives will become unresponsive to the
host. The host will likely take actions such as resetting the bus to
recover the device. And this will force a recovery to be done at a
higher level. We believe few existing applications are prepared to deal
with this type of error. Adding recover from this type of error will be
adding complexity. The existing paradigm of reporting 2/4/8, indicates
the drive is busy and allows the application to recover at simple and
low level and we believe many applications have already implement this
From: owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
[mailto:owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com] On Behalf Of
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:18 AM
To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
Cc: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Consideration of 2/4/7, 2/4/8
I put documents about Consideration of 2/4/7, 2/4/8.
Please pick up and study them.
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
More information about the T10