On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:07:28 -0500, Willem Riede wrote:
>> Based on my expirience with ide-tape, I would rather have it
>> killed instead. One neat trick to appease enemies of ide-scsi
>> might be to rename it into ide-scsi into ide-tape-bis.
>> Might even add DSC bit handling... But the ide-tape is too
>> ugly to live for sure.
>
>I would agree, but would that get any people in trouble? That is,
>are there any IDE tape drives currently supported by ide-tape,
>that are not compatble with ide-scsi plus st?
My Seagate STT8000A works better with ide-scsi+st than with ide-tape.
As long as a working ide-scsi is around, I couldn't care less about
the ide-tape abomination.
/Mikael
On Monday 05 of January 2004 23:01, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:07:28 -0500, Willem Riede wrote:
> >> Based on my expirience with ide-tape, I would rather have it
> >> killed instead. One neat trick to appease enemies of ide-scsi
> >> might be to rename it into ide-scsi into ide-tape-bis.
> >> Might even add DSC bit handling... But the ide-tape is too
> >> ugly to live for sure.
> >
> >I would agree, but would that get any people in trouble? That is,
> >are there any IDE tape drives currently supported by ide-tape,
> >that are not compatble with ide-scsi plus st?
>
> My Seagate STT8000A works better with ide-scsi+st than with ide-tape.
> As long as a working ide-scsi is around, I couldn't care less about
> the ide-tape abomination.
>From your previous mail:
"I use ide-scsi + st for my Seagate ATAPI tape drive, so I welcome
your initiative. ide-tape has had many reliability problems in the
2.4 kernels, and the 2.5 bio changes left it broken from 2.5.12 or
so to 2.6.0-test<late>. It may have been repaired lately, but I for
one don't trust that code base any more."
So how do you know that ide-scsi+st is better? ;-)
Both ide-tape and ide-scsi are to stay in 2.6.x and die in 2.7.x.
--bart