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.
> I've jumpered th
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 drives are loaded.
I've jumpe
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
[cc'ing Mikael Pettersson]
Brad Campbell wrote:
> 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
>>
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:54:52 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>Brad Campbell wrote:
>> 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
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
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.
Oh, I forgot, I still
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 investigate further.
[E
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 recent tree tho
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 recent tree
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 gui
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 party.
Brad Campbell wrote:
> 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
>> bo
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
15 matches
Mail list logo