On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 02:48:12PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> >>>>> "Dieter" == Dieter Rothacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>writes:
>
> Dieter> Why would you want to define "correct" numbering the
> Dieter> non-spread-out numbering? Or did I misunderstand you? I
> Dieter> have all my disks as master drives on the channels. Now,
> Dieter> when I hook up another disk for backup or maintenance
> Dieter> purposes, my numbering is messed up.
>
> Or worse, on a file server where you lose a low-numbered disk, not
> only does that one go away, but everything higher numbered loses as
> well. This "feature" does nothing other than introduce a gratuitous
> backwards-incompatibility. There is nothing wrong with the "old" scheme.
> I've loathed this behaviour since it was introduced into SCSI/CAM,
> and would rejoice at its removal.
I don't see why one should not wire-down the SCSI devices to whatever
one's preference is. This works just brilliantly. But maybe it is
that me having a small mountain of StorageWorks hotplug SCSI devices
makes me defensive in this respect..
W/
--
Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands - The FreeBSD Project
WWW : http://www.tcja.nl http://www.freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
