This message is from the T13 list server.
I assume Mark V and others have conversed at some sub-t13 board level about this since I havent seen any MS commants on this and it was their proposal that started it. I haven't really seen any comments about it from other drive folks either. Did we ever find out if the SATA-II commands that look like they do exactly the function but with different command codes have the same issue? I assume at some point that SATA-II will want to be added to ATAPI-8 (???) as SATA was added to ATAPI-7. It would make sense to address that as well. Gary Laatsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Hedrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Steve Livaccari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Curtis Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments? > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > > Steve, > > This totally nukes and destroys write ordered operations. > Example is the down/commit block on a journalled operation. > > Taking an FUA command to platter and blasting past the queue cache will > destroy every bit of the security designed into any journaling file > system. > > I still do not get why MicroSoft thinks there journaling NTFS of the > meta data in OS buffer cache will not take a hit. If I knew the OS my > data was dependent on did such a "FOOLISH" operation I would find another. > > If T13 continues to move towards making it possible for the HOST to do bad > things, then the DEVICE is even worse. > > We can all pack our bags and go home and switch to T10, because nobody > will trust a device coming out of T13 again. > > Comments? > > Tomato Shield UP!! > > Andre Hedrick > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Steve Livaccari wrote: > > > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > > > > > > All modern HDD's have a buffer for write cache that is used to stack up > > write data from both queued and unqueued write commands. A write command > > followed by a flush cache command will likely not move the data from the > > last write command to the media until the rest of the data is the write > > cache is written. If a write FUA command is used the data from the write > > FUA command will be given priority over the other data in the write cache > > and be written first. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Steve Livaccari > > > > Hard Drive Engineering > > IBM Global Procurement > > Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Phone (919) 543.7393 > > > > > > > > "Curtis Stevens" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > oo.com> cc: > > Sent by: Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > rg > > > > > > 06/17/2003 11:09 > > PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > > > > Gary > > > > As I recall, there were some inacuracies in the proposals as made to > > the > > committee. There were many revisions. The only new FUA commands that make > > sense are the queued ones. All others could be followed by flush cache. > > > > --------------------------- > > Curtis E. Stevens > > 29 Dewey > > Irvine, Ca 92620 > > > > Home: (949) 552-4777 > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the > > face... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gary Laatsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Curtis Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "T13 List Server" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:40 PM > > Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments? > > > > > > > Curtis and Hale, > > > > > > Also, to expand upon this. I think Hale's point is the proposal put > > > forth by Nita didn't contain the QUEUE FUA or QUEUE FUA EXT commands and > > he > > > was wondering where they were added or how they were proposed. My memory > > was > > > this was discussed and added at the June 2002 meetings. That is why I > > was > > > wondering if anyone else remembered these discussions. I remember > > > discussing all of this stuff (even Andre's comments about the FUA blowig > > > away the queue) but for some reason it just wasn't captured very well in > > the > > > minutes. > > > > > > Gary Laatsch > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Curtis Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 3:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments? > > > > > > > > > > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hale > > > > > > > > I was there during the discussions and there was no secret > > committee. > > > > Basically, MS stated that they wanted to force meta data to the drive > > > > without blowing the que. This means that although it is possible to > > lose > > > > data, in their application data loss would not occur... > > > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > Curtis E. Stevens > > > > 29 Dewey > > > > Irvine, Ca 92620 > > > > > > > > Home: (949) 552-4777 > > > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the > > > face... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Hale Landis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:57 AM > > > > Subject: [t13] hmmm.. no comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious why there are no comments about the question of the > > > > > origin of the WRITE DMA QUEUED FUA command (where is the proposal?). > > > > > And why no comments on QUEUED EXT commands with large sector counts. > > > > > > > > > > Is this because all these discussions must take place via the "secret > > > > > society"? > > > > > > > > > > Hale > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
