This message is from the T13 list server.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:25:48 -0700, Nathan Obr wrote: >This message is from the T13 list server. >The 'right thing' for the disk drive behavior that I was >referring to is the assumption that after a write to the disk, any read >from the same address any time after the write, will produce the same >data. OK. I agree this is the "right thing" for normal non-queued/non-overlapped commands. But what about those O/Q commands? We still have not answered the original question from WD. >Drive manufacturer are free to implements something that doesn't >behave this way, but they will have a hard time getting a logo. We >haven't had a hard drive fail for a long time and that is why I say they >have done the right thing for years. So there is a Microsoft specification that describes what is required for "logo testing"? Is is public? >FUA is not new to drive manufacturers. The proposal to add FUA >to T13 was made a year ago. The only issue that a hard drive >manufacturer has had was around releasing which has started this whole >thread. That issue was very quickly resolved. Sorry I missed that... And I didn't save all the emails from last week... Can someone send me the "resolution" email again? Hale *** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com ***
