This message is from the T13 list server.
>From a transfer perspective, yep host is the master - devices are the
slaves. However, in the terms of some of the commands one device is the
"master" and the other the "slave". ("Initiator" / "Responder"? (too SCSI
like and probably misleading, "primary" / "secondary" (treads on the channel
definitions now, "drive 0" / "drive 1" (doesn't really convey the
relationship of the two devices, but then most people probably don't care
... maybe change that to "ID 0" / "ID 1" (now that really sound SCSI with
target numbers))
But in SATA land we just have devices (at least cabling is one happy place
in SATA, parallel emulation is not (but I digress) - hopefully this is a
dead issue going forward.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hale Landis
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11/26/2003 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: [t13] Los Angeles County: Master/Slave term verboten
This message is from the T13 list server.
On 26 Nov 2003 14:13:09 -0700, Pat LaVarre wrote:
>This message is from the T13 list server.
>> > Master ... Slave ... California ...
>Did I miss the specific suggestion of specific, newly conventional,
>substitute jargon to mean Master and Slave?
Master and Slave isn't used in the ATA-x or ATA/ATAPI-x standards.
They are very confusing names for what are really "device 0" and
"device 1". There is no master and there is no slave. If anything, in
a more general sense, the host is the master and the drives are both
slaves.
From a purely technical standpoint, master and slave are just
stupid/bad/cofusing terminology.
Hale
*** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com ***
