This message is from the T13 list server.
Thomas,
The choice is the issue, I should have clarified "SET MAX" and "SET MAX EXT" not
just EXT commands. I sent out an email earlier that if there are 2 tools, driver,
utilities, etc, etc trying to utilize the HPA of a drive under 137GB that supports
48-bit mode, a conflict can (and will) arise. I think there is probably an algorithm
to deal with it already, I am just trying to make some aware and get some to think and
really get the general opinion of what the T13 folks think about it. I personally am
not having an issue, of course, I get to see the drive before anyone else in the
system in my line of work and get to make the initial choice.
:-)
gkl
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Colligan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:25 AM
To: Gary Laatsch; Hale Landis; T13 (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [t13] 48BIT Supported Poll
Gary;
It looks to me that the implementation has different paths. I am given the
option to choose.
48-bit Support allows larger transfers, this is good. It is there if I need
it. 48 Bit addressing, also increases the command overhead, ever so
slightly. Decision!
I have a choice.
As Hale states, "Properly designed and tested drivers should have no
problems with any sized device that claims support of 48-bit LBA."
Tom Colligan
> From: Gary Laatsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:04:08 -0700
> To: Hale Landis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "T13 (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [t13] 48BIT Supported Poll
>
> This message is from the T13 list server.
>
>
> Hale,
>
> As you can see from my later email, the term "properly" is the point of
> debate. The question is really, "should we only use EXT commands if 48-bit
> support is set regardless of the capacity of the device?". Some say "Yes"
> some say "No".
>
> gkl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hale Landis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:49 PM
> To: T13 (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [t13] 48BIT Supported Poll
>
>
> This message is from the T13 list server.
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700, Gary Laatsch wrote:
>> This message is from the T13 list server.
>> Question to all the drive folks.......
>> There seems to be a fuzzy area about use of the 48-bit
>> addressing supported bit in the IDENTIFY DATA (bit 10 of WORD
>> 83). I guess some are setting this bit regardless of the drive
>> capacity and some are only setting it if the capacity is over
>> 137GB. I am hearing "rumors" that this might be creating some
>> driver issues because of the SET MAX and SET MAX EXT commands.
>
> Even a 64MB CF device could (in theory) claim to support 48-bit
> LBA. Properly designed and tested drivers should have no
> problems with any sized device that claims support of 48-bit LBA.
>
>
>
> *** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com ***
>
>
>
