On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:39:46AM +0200, Jarom??r Dole??ek wrote:
>
> Is there any reason we wouldn't want to set QAM=1 by default for
> sd(4)? Seems like pretty obvious performance improvement tweak.
Supposedly, there are some rather old drives -- mid-1990s or thereabouts --
that may keep some
2017-04-02 17:28 GMT+02:00 Thor Lancelot Simon :
> However -- I believe for the 20-30% of SAS drives you mention as shipping
> with WCE set, it should be possible to obtain nearly identical performance
> and more safety by setting the Queue Algorithm Modifier bit in the control
> mode page to 1. T
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:04:11AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> Ugh, quite intrusive...
>
> > vm_prot_t protection; /* protection code */
> > vm_prot_t max_protection; /* maximum protection */
> > + vm_prot_t lim_protection; /* limit for m
Ugh, quite intrusive...
> vm_prot_t protection; /* protection code */
> vm_prot_t max_protection; /* maximum protection */
> + vm_prot_t lim_protection; /* limit for max_protection */
The names are not good. max and limit-of-max don't
