Messages in this thread |  | | From | scott thomason <> | Subject | Re: bio too big device | Date | Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:54:17 -0600 |
| |
Just so everyone knows...these aren't ancient drives I'm talking about. One is a 30GB Maxtor 5T030H3, less than two years old IIRC, and the other is a 30GB IBM-DTLA-307030 purchased about six months ago. ---scott
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:07 am, Andre Hedrick wrote: > No that is wrong to force all other drives to under perform > because on one. If you are going to impose 255 then pushi it > back to 128 were it is a single scatter list. This issue has > bugged me for years and now that we know the exact model we > apply an exception rule to it. > > This is one silly bug that I have heard about. > > Cheers, > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > So lets dirty list the one drive by Paul G. and be done. > > > Can we do that? > > > > Who cares, really? There's not much point in doing it, we're > > talking 248 vs 256 sectors in reality. I think it's a _bad_ > > idea, lets just keep it at 255 and avoid silly drive bugs > > there. > > > > -- > > Jens Axboe > > Andre Hedrick > LAD Storage Consulting Group
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |