Adrian Bunk wrote:
[ Cc's added, additional information is in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/15/32 ]
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 02:49:29PM +0400, Brad Campbell wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
G'day all,
All I have is a digital photo of this oops. (It's 3.5mb). I have serial
console
G'day all,
I recently upgraded this box from 2.6.16 to 2.6.21-rc7 and I've started seeing these timeouts in the
logs. Not incredibly frequent, and thus far not causing problems.. just there where they were not
before. Only generally happening when the storage system is under a bit of strain (li
G'day all,
I've got a box here based on current Debian Stable.
It's got 15 Maxtor SATA drives in it on 4 Promise TX4 controllers.
Using kernel 2.6.21.x it shuts down, but of course with a huge "clack" as 15 drives all do emergency
head parks simultaneously. I thought I'd upgrade to 2.6.22-rc to
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
I don't think sata_promise is the guilty party here. Looks like some
layer above sata_promise got confused about the state of the interface.
But locking up hard after hardreset is a problem of sata_promise, no?
Maybe, maybe not. The original report doesn't specify whe
Johny Mail list wrote:
Hello list,
I have a little question about software RAID on Linux.
I have installed Software Raid on all my SC1425 servers DELL by
believing that the md raid was a strong driver.
And recently i make some test on a server and try to view if the RAID
hard drive power failure
Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
I'm wondering if there are or will be libata drivers, or any drivers for
that matter, for hpt374-based SATA cards?
As HPT374 is not a SATA chip, it needs SATA bridges to work with SATA
drives, hence no the only HPT374 libata driver that's going to ever be
is pata_hp
G'day all,
This has been happening on a lightly loaded box for a while now. I have posted
about it before.
The issue is now I've upgraded 3 drives from 250GB Maxtors to 750GB WD's, it's just getting worse,
particularly when the drives are loaded. I've jumpered the WD's to 1.5GB PHY speed (I had
Brad Campbell wrote:
G'day all,
This has been happening on a lightly loaded box for a while now. I have
posted about it before.
The issue is now I've upgraded 3 drives from 250GB Maxtors to 750GB
WD's, it's just getting worse, particularly when the drives are loaded.
O
Tejun Heo wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
G'day all,
This has been happening on a lightly loaded box for a while now. I have
posted about it before.
The issue is now I've upgraded 3 drives from 250GB Maxtors to 750GB
WD's, it's just getting worse, particularly when the dri
Tejun Heo wrote:
ATA bus error is a strong indicator for hardware problem. Please get a
separate power supply (doesn't have to be an expensive one), power it up
[1], and connect some of the drives to the power supply and see whether
errors persist on those drives.
2 separate tests with the 2
Brad Campbell wrote:
http://www.fnarfbargle.com/CIMG1029.JPG (I have posted this screen shot
previously. It's still doing exactly the same thing on both boxes).
git-bisect shows up this commit as the guilty party. I can't just revert it on
a recent tree though.
Will investiga
Tejun Heo wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
http://www.fnarfbargle.com/CIMG1029.JPG (I have posted this screen
shot previously. It's still doing exactly the same thing on both boxes).
git-bisect shows up this commit as the guilty party. I can't just revert
it on a r
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
The box was described as a KT600 chipset era machine
with 3 Promise SATA150TX4 cards, a SIL3112 card, and
an on-board VIA controller. According to the `lspci'
posted the box probably also has an AGP card and at
least one gigaether card (there's two, I guess one might
be
Tejun Heo wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
http://www.fnarfbargle.com/CIMG1029.JPG (I have posted this screen
shot previously. It's still doing exactly the same thing on both
boxes).
git-bisect shows up this commit as the guilty
Tejun Heo wrote:
Any attempt to spin down sdi-sdo in any order locks hard. Any attempt to
spin down sda-sdh works in any combination/permutation.
Hmmm... I'm out of ideas. It definitely sounds like some sort of
hardware problem to me. I think the best way to diagnose the problem is
playing th
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Mark Hahn wrote:
I had good luck with this patch as well. I think the SATA-SMART patches
should go in too, even if they aren't perfect yet...
The Promise SATAII patch went in today.
The SMART patches absolutely -should not- go in. Certain common hdparm
commands can cause data
Woke up to this, this morning.
This is yesterdays 2.6.11-rc4 BK + libata BK + libata-dev BK
It was in the middle of a RAID-6 rebuild (scheduled to take about 740 minutes)
Regards,
Brad
Feb 16 07:32:17 storage1 kernel: ata15: command timeout
Feb 16 07:32:17 storage1 kernel: Assertion failed! qc->fla
Brad Campbell wrote:
Woke up to this, this morning.
This is yesterdays 2.6.11-rc4 BK + libata BK + libata-dev BK
It was in the middle of a RAID-6 rebuild (scheduled to take about 740
minutes)
Oh well, it appears to be reproducible anyway!
Regards,
Brad
ata15: status=0x51 { DriveReady
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
Woke up to this, this morning.
This is yesterdays 2.6.11-rc4 BK + libata BK + libata-dev BK
It was in the middle of a RAID-6 rebuild (scheduled to take about 740
minutes)
Oh well, it appears to be reproducible anyway!
Reproducible
Andy Warner wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
[...]
Actually, I'm not sure without the libata dev patch as that removes SMART support, and I'm not
convinced that my smartd polling every 20 minutes does not have something to do with it. All I know
is the older kernel seems to cope. We&#
Brad Campbell wrote:
Andy Warner wrote:
Brad Campbell wrote:
[...]
Actually, I'm not sure without the libata dev patch as that removes
SMART support, and I'm not convinced that my smartd polling every 20
minutes does not have something to do with it. All I know is the
older kernel see
Brad Campbell wrote:
Have been unable to hit the bug with SMART disabled (Kernel unchanged).
So.. Pass through (or SMART in particular) is not really safe on UP
either, you just have to work really hard at it to hit the corner cases.
I tried it last night with the latest and greatest Vanilla
Brad Campbell wrote:
Now I have also replaced the PSU with a much better specced unit, so
that may have also been a contributing factor to the oops. (The 12v rail
was running on the edge).
If this rebuild this morning gets through then I'll go back to the old
kernel that was oopsing and t
Thorild Selen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allen Bolderoff) writes:
However - this card/driver is known to break when using more than 1
drive at a time (ie accessing 2 or 3 drives at once)
I only have experience with the SATA150 TX4 (which uses the same
driver), but it quite obviously breaks som
Thorild Selen wrote:
Brad Campbell writes:
> In one machine, I'm using 15 disks on 4 SATA150TX4 cards with
> 2.6.11.7 and have been now for over 4 months.. it's working
> perfectly.. not so much as a glitch.
Is this a single-processor system without hyperthreading or the
G'day all,
Rehash of an old problem. I've done a bit of homework and found this only occurs on the last 2 ports
of the card. If I take the drives from ports 3&4 and put them on a SIL3112 I've got lying around,
then the system works perfectly.
Diving deeper, the below problem only surfaces whe
Alan wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 08:01:45 +0100
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if you are interested in investigating this, please
let me know what kind of data you would like to see
and/or what kind of tests would be appreciated.
I reviewed the 374 code a bit further to see what mig
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
sounds great! where can I get that version?
should it be in 2.6.20-rc* or is there a separate
patch available somewhere?
The patch was contained in the message from Alan to you that I replied to. I just applied it to a
vanilla 2.6.20-rc3 tree and fired it up.
(I've pas
Brad Campbell wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
sounds great! where can I get that version?
should it be in 2.6.20-rc* or is there a separate
patch available somewhere?
The patch was contained in the message from Alan to you that I replied
to. I just applied it to a vanilla 2.6.20-rc3 tree and
29 matches
Mail list logo
