Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!hscfvax!pavlov
From: pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: more on Ultrix 2.0 / Emulex disk throughput
Keywords: MicrovaxII, Ultrix 1.1, 2.0, Emulex QD controllers
Message-ID: <619@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Date: 13 Sep 88 00:46:52 GMT
References: <3591@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <615@hscfvax.harvard.edu> <3613@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University
Lines: 21

In article <3613@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, paul@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Lansky) writes:
> Concerning Emulex QD series Disk controller behaviour under Ultrix 2.0 
> > In article <615@hscfvax.harvard.edu>, pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) writes:
> >    
> >   The problem appears to be that DEC decreased the timeout interval on disk
> >   requests......
> 
> Can anyone tell me where this timeout occurs? Is it in the uda driver?
> its stragegy, start, or interrupt routine?  I have picked through the 
> driver a bit and cannot see anything there that would cause this.  The
> problem is severe, however.....
> Thank you.  (Both Dec and Emulex seem very tightlipped about this.

  I was careful to say that this what was relayed to me by Emulex.  I do not
  have source code.  DEC was not helpful.  Emulex was difficult to deal with
  all around.  The entire incident chewed up most of what we saved on purchas-
  ing 3rd party controllers instead of KDA's.  On the other hand, those con-
  trollers let us use Fuji Beagles (M2333K's).

  greg pavlov.