Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch.sf-bay.org!scott From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: adaptec 2842, exabyte 4200c, and NO SENSE Date: 11 Jul 1995 15:30:56 GMT Organization: At Home; Salida, CA Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3tu5fg$njf@gazette.tandem.com> References: <3tha1v$q29@one.mind.net> <3tmucl$mvt@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3tpfbj$i6i@gazette.tandem.com> <3trhkj$efa@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de> Reply-To: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.150.103.17 >> I don't know if the controller block size is 32k; somewhere I >>just read that 64k was a common size, hence the common use of 126b. >128b? Why not using `64k' if you mean this... I don't have the source material with me (a pre-alpha copy of O'Reilly's _System Administration Power Tools_), but there were fairly good reasons for using only 63k - overhead, I believe. I think the 126b expression is used to be compatible with tar and cpio's default blocksize. -- Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or tandem!zorch!scott