Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:00:00AM -0500, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 13:46 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
I'm getting these on my Dell Latitude D830:
Feb 15 13:06:00 willow kernel: ata1.00: exception Emask 0x2 SAct 0x4 SErr
0x0 action 0x2 frozen
Feb 15 13:06:00
Alan Cox wrote:
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The comment is misleading at best...
It doesn't matter if NO_IRQ is zero or not here, because ata_irq
is not a static/global variable, but a local one. By removing the
initializer, here, the semantics changes.
But in this very case,
Matías Alejandro Torres wrote:
Hi all,
I have a SATA drive in a motherboard with an ATI SB600 chipset that
until now worked just fine.
The disk seems fine but after a while it start making noises (like
spinning up) and the computer freezes during 2 or 3 seconds. I think my
SATA drive is
Marco Schuster wrote:
Hi all,
I use a WDC WD1600BEVS-2 SATA drive (160GB).
The controller is a standard Intel ICH8 chipset.
During high disk load (fsck, large file copies) the system or the
process (mostly both) lock up and resume some secs later. In dmesg for
every of those breaks this
Richard Scobie wrote:
If one disregards the rotational speed and access time advantage that
SAS drives have over SATA, does the SAS interface offer any performance
advantage?
It's a very good question, to which I wish I have an answer myself ;)
Since I never tried actual SAS controllers with
While trying to test NCQ thing again, I come across
a problem, it seems: the only hardware available for
testing to me right now is an ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard,
which is based on Nvidia nForce 430/GeForce 6150.
lspci shows this:
00:0f.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP51 Serial ATA
[replying to myself...]
Michael Tokarev wrote:
While trying to test NCQ thing again, I come across
a problem, it seems: the only hardware available for
testing to me right now is an ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard,
which is based on Nvidia nForce 430/GeForce 6150.
lspci shows this:
00:0f.0 IDE
Matheus Izvekov wrote:
Seagate drive ST3160023AS is correctly detected as supporting NCQ, but
when its used with moderate loads, libata keeps throwing error
messages until it finally decides to disable NCQ on it.
[]
ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata1.00: ATA-6:
Tejun Heo wrote:
diego torres wrote:
Hi there,
This seagate drive ST3500630AS is being recognized as NCQ capable by
hdparm, and has the default queue_depth of 31, so i think it should
work ok. But there are some problems when using smartmontools (for
example in short test mode) as seen in
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On 10/30/07, Michael Tokarev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, did you forget to remove a jumper on the drive
(the only jumper installed by default) that limits drive
usage to SATAI?
...
..etc. Try again without the jumper? Note that NCQ is NOT supported
in SATAI
I tried switching one machine here from old IDE
modules to a new pata subsystem today. And it
failed, for the first time I ever tried this
procedure. Pata_via refuses to recognize one
of the drives.
Here's the dmesg with via82cxxx (2.6.20):
Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision:
And one more issue with my attempt to switch
from via82cxxx to pata_via.
I noticied that on all machines I tried to convert,
CD-Rom devices are recognized as hard disks.
With via82cxxx and ide-cd, it was like
hdc: IDE cdrom model=FX4830T s/n=4JV6F7Q4 fw=8.01 udma5
But with pata_via and 2.6.23,
Alan Cox wrote:
Oct 17 18:30:59 linux kernel: ata2: port is slow to respond, please be
patient (Status 0x80)
Oct 17 18:30:59 linux kernel: ata2: SRST failed (errno=-16)
So it failed to reset and come back to sanity.
Oct 17 18:30:59 linux kernel: ata2.01: ATAPI: FX4830T, R02E, max UDMA/33
Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Well. It looks like the results does not depend on the
elevator. Originally I tried with deadline, and just
re-ran the test with noop (hence the long delay with
the answer) - changing linux elevator changes almost
nothing in the results
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Tokarev wrote:
[]
A test drive is Seagate Barracuda ST3250620AS desktop drive,
250Gb, cache size is 16Mb, 7200RPM.
[test shows that NCQ makes no difference whatsoever]
And which elevator?
Well. It looks like the results does not depend on the
elevator. Originally I
[Offtopic notice: For the first time I demonstrated some
speed testing results on linux-ide mailinglist, as a
demonstration how [NT]CQ can help. But later, someone
becomes curious and posted that email to lkml, asking
for more details. Since that, I become more curious
as well, and decided to
Michael Tokarev wrote:
[]
I'm planning to test several models of SCSI drives. On SCSI front
(or maybe with different drives - I don't know) things are WAY more
interesting wrt TCQ. Difference in results between 1 and 32 threads
goes up to 4 times sometimes!. But I'm a bit stuck with SCSI
Jeff Garzik wrote:
IN THEORY, RAID performance should /increase/ due to additional queued
commands available to be sent to the drive. NCQ == command queueing ==
sending multiple commands to the drive, rather than one-at-a-time like
normal.
But hdparm isn't the best test for that theory,
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Don't forget about max_sectors_kb either (for all drives in the SW RAID5
array)
max_sectors_kb = 8
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=file.out6 bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 55.4848 seconds, 194 MB/s
max_sectors_kb = 128
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied,
On each and every machine out there, and on every dmesg
output posted on numerous mailinglists, I see messages
similar to this:
scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA ST3250620NS 3.AE PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
SCSI device sda: 488397168 512-byte hdwr sectors (250059 MB)
SCSI device sda: write cache:
20 matches
Mail list logo
