[T10] t10/20-113

Ralph Weber Ralph.Weber at wdc.com
Sun Nov 1 15:51:40 PST 2020


>  1) I really don’t see what the change is to Table 460, Code Fh.

The Additional Sense Code changes from COMMAND TIMEOUT BEFORE PROCESSING to COMMAND TIMEOUT *DURING* PROCESSING in order to reflect that fact that the Active Timer was exceeded instead of the Inactive Timer.

> 2) The elimination of Table 460 Code Eh seems to be removing desirable specificity of function.
> Then again, I no longer have a horse in this race.

Too true! The motivation for 20-113 arose from T13 where SATA cannot return well-managed partial amounts of read data. SCSI is not hobbled by such limitations, therefore, the removal of codepoint Eh support from SPC is not acceptable to Western Digital. If CAP agrees, then this difficulty can easily be overcome.

> 3) On the same rationale of 2) above, Table new1 Code Eh seems puzzling. Of course, it would
> seem that not meeting such criteria os more of a corner case for inactive as opposed to active,
> but nevertheless...

Boiled down to its essence, the difference between codepoints Eh and Fh is that, using Eh, the host requests the device server to return read data if possible, whereas Fh includes no such request (a definite performance win if the host is going to drop the data on the cutting room floor anyway).

Since the tripping of the Inactive Timeout indicates that the device server never even tried to transfer data, allowing codepoint Eh as an Inactive Timeout Policy is about as nugatory as anything can get.

All the best, .Ralph


From: t10-bounces at t10.org <t10-bounces at t10.org> On Behalf Of joe at lingua-data.com
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 6:48 PM
To: T10 Reflector <t10 at t10.org>; Gerry Houlder <gerry.houlder at seagate.com>
Subject: [T10] t10/20-113

Not sure this mic is on…

1) I really don’t see what the change is to Table 460, Code Fh.

2) The elimination of Table 460 Code Eh seems to be removing desirable specificity of function. Then again, I no longer have a horse in this race.

3) On the same rationale of 2) above, Table new1 Code Eh seems puzzling. Of course, it would seem that not meeting such criteria os more of a corner case for inactive as opposed to active, but nevertheless...


Begin forwarded message:

From: DoNotReply at t10.org<mailto:DoNotReply at t10.org>
Subject: [T10] Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2020/10/24
Date: October 31, 2020 at 1:02:23 AM MDT
To: T10 Reflector <t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>>
Reply-To: DoNotReply at t10.org<mailto:DoNotReply at t10.org>

Proposals
---------
SPC-6 Command duration limits policy clarifications
(by: Gerald Houlder)
T10/20-113r0   Uploaded: 2020/10/26   105538 bytes
https://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=20-113r0.pdf

SAM6: RFC comment resolution document
(by: Frederick Knight)
T10/20-115r0   Uploaded: 2020/10/27   1497989 bytes
https://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=20-115r0.pdf

Agenda for T10 Meeting #160
(by: William Martin)
T10/20-116r0   Uploaded: 2020/10/26   199128 bytes
https://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=20-116r0.pdf

Working Drafts
--------------

(Report generated on 2020/10/31 at 00:02:04)

_______________________________________________
T10 mailing list
T10 at t10.org<mailto:T10 at t10.org>
https://www.t10.org/mailman/listinfo/t10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/attachments/20201101/af664b90/attachment.html>


More information about the T10 mailing list