On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 10:02, Eric Siegerman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:53:55AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
I thought[*] 7 was the highest priority, and 0 the lowest (on a
narrow channel).
That's what I recall too.
Wide devices
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 04:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 10:02, Eric Siegerman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:53:55AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
I thought[*] 7 was the highest priority, and 0 the lowest (on a
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Jon LaBadie wrote:
The writer claimed that on a SCSI bus the lower ID numbers were given
precedence (priority?), the effect of which was felt during heavy usage.
Further, this effect could particularly be felt by tape drives with high
SCSI numbers. During heavy total I/O
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:53:55AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
I thought[*] 7 was the highest priority, and 0 the lowest (on a narrow
channel).
That's what I recall too.
Wide devices have an even lower priority: 15 to 8.
This sounds vaguely familiar too, but I'm *far* less certain
about
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 10:02, Eric Siegerman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:53:55AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
I thought[*] 7 was the highest priority, and 0 the lowest (on a
narrow channel).
That's what I recall too.
Wide devices have an even lower priority: 15 to 8.
This
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:55:31PM -0500, James D. Freels wrote:
I have the new scsi card (an inexpensive LSILogic LSIU80ALVDB) that
fixes the problems I was having. So, the Exabyte tech support was
correct and the great advice I got herein this mailing list also said
get a separate scsi card
this is consistent with what the Exabyte Tech support told me. The tape library comes with scsi id 0 by default while the tape drive had an scsi id = 11. Now how many bootable scsi drives have anything but scsi id=0. So, there was a direct conflict. I changed the scsi id=3 on the library and
