On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 12:05:37AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Just to make things clear here, the LUN you're talking about is not
> the scsi unit number (which is what I think Martin was referring to)
> but a sub-device number within a single scsi ID. Right?
Correct. I should have written "SCSI
Date:Sat, 11 Jul 2020 18:24:51 +0300
From:Kimmo Suominen
Message-ID: <20200711152451.ga1...@homeworld.netbsd.org>
| On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 05:00:02PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
| > I don't understand the change. When was this broken? This has always
worked
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 06:24:51PM +0300, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
> I think all real SCSI hardware I've had has always just only had LUN 0,
> and each disk has been on its own SCSI ID (target).
Yes, I confused ID and LUN here - just ignore me.
Martin
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 05:00:02PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> I don't understand the change. When was this broken? This has always worked
> for me e.g. with the sd0 at LUN 3 and the controller at 6 or 7.
I think all real SCSI hardware I've had has always just only had LUN 0,
and each disk has
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 05:57:46PM +0300, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 05:47:34PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > I'd reckon a pullup to NetBSD 9 would be in order?
>
> Yes, I was just waiting to be able to link to mail-index. I had
> already checked that the patch applies cle
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 05:47:34PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> I'd reckon a pullup to NetBSD 9 would be in order?
Yes, I was just waiting to be able to link to mail-index. I had
already checked that the patch applies cleanly to both netbsd-9
and netbsd-8.
http://releng.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/req-
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 02:31:46PM +, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
> Use case 2: A Linode boot profile with multiple disks results in
> the first disk ("sda") on LUN 1, while the second disk ("sdb") is
> on LUN 0, each on their own bus.
As Linode is quite popular, and supposedly uses a rather similar
