[T10] CAP Proposal "SBC-4 & SPC-5: Add READ (232) and WRITE (232) commands" uploaded

Ralph Weber roweber at ieee.org
Thu Oct 6 09:54:26 PDT 2016


I have been given to understand that fixed length CDBs with the opcode 
specifying the length are very much preferred by the drive-side 
automation hardware that reads/dispatches incoming commands byte-by-byte 
off the wire. Since a goal of 16-252 is to provide the best possible 
opportunities for high performance read/write processing, a CDB length 
field will not appear in any revision of 16-252 that I upload.

All the best,

.Ralph

On 10/6/2016 11:46 AM, Joe Breher wrote:
> Perhaps we need to displace the LOGICAL BLOCK ADDRESS field with a new 
> ADDITIONAL CDB LENGTH field, and slide everything else down eight 
> bytes. One might presume that a CDB length of 16EiB-12 might be enough 
> for the foreseeable future.
>
> Joe Breher
> Storage Architecture Technologist
> Standards Setting Organization
> San Jose Research Center
> Western Digital
> +1 (478) 2-Breher
> +1 (478) 227-3437
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 8:59 AM, Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org 
>> <mailto:roweber at ieee.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 232 seemed big enough to make the point without being so big as to 
>> give somebody the opportunity to prove that I hadn't done my homework 
>> fully enough.  All the best, .Ralph
>>
>> P.S. One or two complaints have been heard to the effect that 232 is 
>> too big.
>>
>> On 10/6/2016 8:53 AM, Kevin.Marks at dell.com 
>> <mailto:Kevin.Marks at dell.com> wrote:
>>> I'm curious why you choose a 232 byte instead of what seems like an 
>>> SPC max of 260 byte, or is this for future expansion? BTW looks like 
>>> all the transports can take a 268 byte max.
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: t10-bounces at t10.org <mailto:t10-bounces at t10.org> 
>>> [mailto:t10-bounces at t10.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 6:43 AM
>>> To: T10, Reflector <T10 at t10.org <mailto:T10 at t10.org>>
>>> Subject: [T10] CAP Proposal "SBC-4 & SPC-5: Add READ (232) and WRITE 
>>> (232) commands" uploaded
>>>
>>> In response to complaints that the Milford CAP gathering seemed too 
>>> much like a Tea & Scones Club, a proposal laced with controversy 
>>> from pillar to post has been added to the Santa Rosa CAP agenda.
>>>
>>> Titled "SBC-4 & SPC-5: Add READ (232) and WRITE (232) commands", its 
>>> six pages of pure explosives are available from:
>>> http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=16-252r1.pdf
>>>
>>> Those touched by a desire to expound upon the proposal's motivating 
>>> forces will need to converse with Kevin Marks, since he was the 
>>> first to loose an arrow that pierced the bullseye (not to mention 
>>> his pithy rejoinder, the colorful nature of which is unlikely to be 
>>> exceeded by any subsequent offering).
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> .Ralph
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> T10 mailing list
>>> T10 at t10.org
>>> http://www.t10.org/mailman/listinfo/t10
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> T10 mailing list
>> T10 at t10.org <mailto:T10 at t10.org>
>> http://www.t10.org/mailman/listinfo/t10
>



More information about the T10 mailing list