Hi, On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:14:30AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Marc Haber wrote: > > > Do you mean that it's a different sector number every time you run your > > > test, or a different sector number every time you put a different disk in > > > the enclosure, or something else? > > > > The number reported in the "I/O error" line (with USB debugging turned > > of) is a different one every time the test is run. Once the error is > > shown, the USB subsystem seems to get into a bad state and all > > subsequent requests fail. > > I think that's not the USB subsystem getting into a bad state; more likely > it's the SCSI subsystem taking the disk off-line because of unrecoverable > errors. Unplugging the drive and then plugging it back in ought to help.
Yes, that usually helps, but doesn't help when the drive is at a remote site. > > When I reboot and repeat the test, the error > > repeats after different time spans (sometimes after a minute, > > sometimes after multiple hours) with the same sector number. > > Above you said "The number reported in the "I/O error" line ... is a > _different_ one every time the test is run." Here you say when you repeat > the test, the error repeats with the _same_ sector number. Which is > correct? I must admit that I have become quite confused between two computers, a notebook, one PCI USB card, two enclosures and three disks. I should have been more thorough with my documentation. If I need to repeat the tests, is it enough to have the sector number reported from the SCSI subsystem, or do I really need to run with the _very_ verbose USB logging enabled? > "... after different time spans..." Does that mean sometimes you are able > to read the sector without getting an error? Obviously, I need to note the wallclock time from test start to test failure as well. > > Once the > > first error has appeared, the sector numbers of the subsequent errors > > are all near the first one. > > Again, that's probably because the disk is off-line. Once that happens > all further I/O requests fail, so you see a series of errors with > incrementing sector numbers. Yes, of course. So it's really only the first error that matters. > Can you try using this device on a system running Windows? If you still > get similar errors (and especially if they occur at the same sector > locations) then you should try to exchange the enclosure or get it > repaired. Windows is not so easily scriptable, and since I use ext3 as file system on the USB disks, I would need to build a new file system which will probably destroy the "bad" bit pattern, influencing the test result. > > This is the lspci output of my EHCI adapter: > > 0000:00:0c.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 63) (prog-if 20 > > [EHCI]) > > Subsystem: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 > > Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 9 > > Memory at f4000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256] > > Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2 > > 0000:00:0c.2 Class 0c03: 1106:3104 (rev 63) (prog-if 20) > > Subsystem: 1106:3104 > > Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 9 > > Memory at f4000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256] > > Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2 > > I was referring to the USB adapter in the enclosure, not the one in your > computer. It's possible however that there's some weird incompatibility > between the two adapters. On the other hand, the fact that your drive > fails when plugged into different computers indicates that there really is > something wrong with the interface in the enclosure. I have two desktop boxes, but both only have USB 1.1, so I need to use a PCI USB card which I only have one. So, all tests involving the desktop boxes have been done with the same PCI card with its PCI data listed above. The enclosure works fine when connected to my Notebook which has a USB 2.0 interface built into the Centrino chipset. Tomorrow, I will get an different USB PCI card which hopefully has a different chipset. > > We all know the Genesys adapters are > > fundamentally broken. I have VIA in the host, and Cypress in the > > enclosure. > > There has been progress recently on the Genesys front, thanks to some > advice from the Genesys technical support people. So at the moment they > are probably about as reliable as the Cypress interfaces. I have to disagree here. I have tried three kernel patches against 2.4.26, and the Genesys enclosure has failed on me with each of these patches. I have returned the enclosure and exchanged it for the cypress one. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-users
