On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:53:54PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Ming, dear Raghava, dear Dave,
>
>
> On 08/16/18 19:09, Paul Menzel wrote:
>
> > On 08/13/18 05:32, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 03:50:21PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:14:18A
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 03:21:52PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
>
> Commit ef86f3a7 (genirq/affinity: assign vectors to all possible CPUs) added
> for Linux 4.14.56 causes the aacraid module to not detect the attached devices
> anymore on a Dell PowerEdge R720 with two six core 24x E5
> -Original Message-
> From: Hans de Goede [mailto:hdego...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:51 AM
> To: dl-esc-Aacraid Linux Driver ; James E.J.
> Bottomley ; Martin K. Petersen
> ; SCSI development list s...@vger.kernel.org>; Linux Kernel Mailing List
>
> Subject: aacraid
Cc: linux-s...@vger.kernel.org
2017-02-10 13:24 GMT+03:00 Greg Kroah-Hartman :
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 02:25:26AM +0300, Andrey Jr. Melnikov wrote:
>> In article <201701151205.37563.a.miskiew...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>> > Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
>>
>>
>> > Hi.
>>
>> > There is a bug with
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 01:45:06PM +0300, Andrey Melnikov wrote:
> Cc: linux-s...@vger.kernel.org
>
> 2017-02-10 13:24 GMT+03:00 Greg Kroah-Hartman :
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 02:25:26AM +0300, Andrey Jr. Melnikov wrote:
> >> In article <201701151205.37563.a.miskiew...@gmail.com> you wrote:
> >>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 02:25:26AM +0300, Andrey Jr. Melnikov wrote:
> In article <201701151205.37563.a.miskiew...@gmail.com> you wrote:
> > Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
>
>
> > Hi.
>
> > There is a bug with handling of adaptec raid cards (in my case it is
> > Adaptec
> > 3405) where kernel
In article <201701151205.37563.a.miskiew...@gmail.com> you wrote:
> Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
> Hi.
> There is a bug with handling of adaptec raid cards (in my case it is Adaptec
> 3405) where kernel logs hundreds of "AAC: Host adapter dead -1" messages.
> Bug was reported previously on l
On Tuesday 17 of January 2017, Dave Carroll wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > There is a bug with handling of adaptec raid cards (in my case it is
> > Adaptec 3405) where kernel logs hundreds of "AAC: Host adapter dead -1"
> > messages.
> >
> > Bug was reported previously on lkml but there was no progres in
Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sez:
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:54 AM
> To: Salyzyn, Mark
> Cc: Omar Kilani; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: aacraid: Host adapter reset request. SCSI hang ?
>
> > pattern between the controller and Linux' SCSI su
> pattern between the controller and Linux' SCSI subsystem. The alternate
> workaround is for the user to adjust the timeout in sysfs if it is shorter
> than this value. This is the only
Does that actually work. I consistently see libata reporting 60 seconds
but the commands are on 30 second tim
This 'Host adapter reset request. SCSI hang ?' message hides a rather
complicated-to-explain underlying hardware behavior.
Aacraid based controllers have an underlying timeout/recovery cycle that is 35
seconds long, there is a driver patch for this POST RHEL5 (but is going into
RHEL5.2) that in
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:38:13 +1100
"Omar Kilani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> We're having issues with our Adaptec RAID controller and I was
> wondering if anyone would be able to advise on how to go about
> resolving them. :)
>
> The system:
>
> RHEL 5.1 x86_64
> Kernel 2.6.18-53
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:38:13 +1100
"Omar Kilani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> We're having issues with our Adaptec RAID controller and I was
> wondering if anyone would be able to advise on how to go about
> resolving them. :)
>
> The system:
>
> RHEL 5.1 x86_64
> Kernel 2.6.18-53
On Jan 23, 2008 9:28 AM, Salyzyn, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At which version of the kernel did the aacraid driver allegedly first go
> broken? At which version did it get fixed? (Since 1.1.5-2451 is older than
> latest represented on kernel.org)
snitzer:
I don't know where the kernel.org
At which version of the kernel did the aacraid driver allegedly first go
broken? At which version did it get fixed? (Since 1.1.5-2451 is older than
latest represented on kernel.org)
How is the SATA disk'd arrayed on the aacraid controller? The controller is
limited to generating 24 arrays and s
rom: Andrew Morton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:59 PM
> To: Salyzyn, Mark
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: AACRAID failure with 2.6.13-rc1
>
> "Salyzyn, Mark" <[EMAIL PROT
Yes, please put the workaround into 2.6.13!
Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Morton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:59 PM
To: Salyzyn, Mark
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AACRAID
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Salyzyn, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Martin may be overplaying the performance angle.
> >
> > A previous patch took the adapter from 64K to 4MB transaction sizes
> > across the board. This caused Martin's adapter and drive combination to
"Salyzyn, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin may be overplaying the performance angle.
>
> A previous patch took the adapter from 64K to 4MB transaction sizes
> across the board. This caused Martin's adapter and drive combination to
> tip-over. We had to scale back to 128KB sized transact
n, Mark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AACRAID failure with 2.6.13-rc1
. . .
ah, thanks.
A temporary workaround which might affct performance sounds better than
a
dead box though.
Mark, do you think that many systems are likely to be affected this way?
Do you think we should do something tempo
Martin Drab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > [ 278.732829] scsi0 (0:0): rejecting I/O to offline device
> > > [ 278.735954] Buffer I/O error on device sda2, logical block 491840
> > > [ 278.739147] lost page write due to I/O error on sda2
> > > [ 278.742389] scsi0 (0:0): rejecting I/O to
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Martin Drab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a problem with the AACRAID driver on 2.6.13-rc1-git6 (also tested
> > with -git4). I have an Adaptec AAR-2410SA SATA RAID controller card with 2
> > RAIDs defined on (sda (Data 2) is a
> On Gwe, 2005-02-11 at 14:28, Jonathan Knight wrote:
> Fedora 2.6.10 or the base 2.6.10. The base 2.6.10 is missing at least
> one aacraid fix.
Fedora. We checked that it had a fix in that you'd posted about on this
list.
--
__[EMAIL PROTECTED]Jonathan Knight,
/
On Gwe, 2005-02-11 at 14:28, Jonathan Knight wrote:
> Fedora and the 2.6 kernel nothing has worked well. The latest 2.6.10 build
> is the worst so far. We've even gone and unpacked the rc3 for 2.6.11 and
> dug out the aacraid controller but that didn't perform any better. We think
> 2.6.8 was th
contain the firmware prints.
Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Knight [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:31 AM
To: Salyzyn, Mark
Cc: Jonathan Knight; Mark Haverkamp; linux-kernel
Subject: Re: aacraid fails under kernel 2.6
> Then t
> Then turn off both read and write cache on the card ...
We've tried with no cache and we had multiple failures over the weekend.
We are running 2.4.20 on some of these boxes and it is stable. We're
only having problems with the 2.6 kernel.
These systems did stay running for a few hours and th
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:01 AM
To: Mark Haverkamp
Cc: Jonathan Knight; linux-kernel; Salyzyn, Mark
Subject: Re: aacraid fails under kernel 2.6
> A number of people have seen problems like this going from 2.4 to 2.6.
> Mark Salyzyn from Adaptec has suggested in those cases t
> A number of people have seen problems like this going from 2.4 to 2.6.
> Mark Salyzyn from Adaptec has suggested in those cases to make sure that
> the board firmware is up to date. I've copied Mark on this mail.
We think we're on the latest everything. The BIOS is A07 and the firmware
on the
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 14:28 +, Jonathan Knight wrote:
>
> We are having major problems with the aacraid module under fedora core 2 on
> Dell poweredge 2500. These use PERC3/Di controllers.
[ ... ]
>
> The systems run fine with no users, but as soon as the disks go under load
> we get the f
On Thu, Feb 08 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > total request sizes. I would rather fix this limitation then, and
> > would also be interested to know if any of the (older) SCSI drivers
> > have such limitations too.
>
> And some new ones. One of my i2o scsi controllers has that problem.
Ok thanks, I'
> total request sizes. I would rather fix this limitation then, and
> would also be interested to know if any of the (older) SCSI drivers
> have such limitations too.
And some new ones. One of my i2o scsi controllers has that problem.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe l
> much-improved block layer of 2.4.x throws larger I/Os at the driver. So,
> the developers at Adaptec are busy trying to add support to break large
> requests into smaller chunks, and then gather them back together.
That sounds like it should be doable at the queuing layer. If not the scsi
queu
On Wed, Feb 07 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I haven't seen this driver, but if it uses the SCSI layer instead
> > of being a "pure" block driver then I can see a slight problem
> > in that currently only understand max sg entry limits and not
> > total request sizes. I would rather fix this
> I haven't seen this driver, but if it uses the SCSI layer instead
> of being a "pure" block driver then I can see a slight problem
> in that currently only understand max sg entry limits and not
> total request sizes. I would rather fix this limitation then, and
> would also be interested to kno
On Wed, Feb 07 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Adaptec is still working on it. Basically (and as Jason discovered), the
> driver and firmware can't handle single I/O requests larger than 64KB. Even
> when scatter/gathered, if the total is >64KB, it chokes. This was just fine
> for 2.2.x (no on
> I see in the archives of this mailing list that someone was
> working on the
> aacraid driver for the 2.4 kernel however that post was
> almost 2 months old.
Adaptec is still working on it. Basically (and as Jason discovered), the
driver and firmware can't handle single I/O requests larger t
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Jason Ford wrote:
> Byron,
>
> I got your patch to compile in fine however it still exhibits the same
> behavior that the older patches did. It looks like the commands sent to the
> controller are still not working correctly as the new subsystem in the
> kernel was rewritten.
on.. Am I doing something wrong?
Thanks for your reply post..
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Byron Stanoszek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 5:48 PM
To: Jason Ford
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: aacraid 2.4.0 kernel
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Jason Ford wrote
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Jason Ford wrote:
> I see in the archives of this mailing list that someone was working on the
> aacraid driver for the 2.4 kernel however that post was almost 2 months old.
> I know Alan Cox denied inclusion of the driver due to the poor nature it was
> written for the 2.2 tr
> I want to run kernel 2.2.18 with aacraid support. Does anyone
> know where I can get the aacraid patches?
Hi David. Thanks for writing. This question has come up a number of times
lately, so I'll respond to the LK list too.
The open-source aacraid driver (formerly named percraid) is include
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 18:40:00 -0500 , Boerner, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get another oops. I'm not very efficient at reading these messages. To bad
> the oops-tracing.txt file isn't in a little more detail. It seems you have
> to be quite knowledgeable of the inner workings of the Linux
Keith Owens wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:31:04 -0500 ,
> "Boerner, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The driver
> >is generating a segmentation fault and produces and oops. I have included
> >Code: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 b8 00 00 00 83 ec 34 68 00 2c 82 c8
>
> That code looks bad. I sus
Andi Kleen writes:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 05:31:04PM -0500, Boerner, Brian wrote:
> > EIP:0010:[]
Note the value of EIP, and compare it with the structure size of
"struct module".
> > Code: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 b8 00 00 00 83 ec 34 68 00 2c 82 c8
> ^^^
>...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:31:04 -0500 ,
"Boerner, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The driver
>is generating a segmentation fault and produces and oops. I have included
>Code: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 b8 00 00 00 83 ec 34 68 00 2c 82 c8
That code looks bad. I suspect you are using an old modutils
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 05:31:04PM -0500, Boerner, Brian wrote:
> EIP:0010:[]
> Using defaults from ksymoops -t elf32-i386 -a i386
> EFLAGS: 00010286
> eax: 0025 ebx: c881c000 ecx: edx:
^
> esi: 0001 edi: ebp: c88296a0 esp: c6b51e74
45 matches
Mail list logo
