On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:35:05 +0900
Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeap, certainly. I'll ask people first before actually proceeding with
> the blacklisting. I'm just getting a bit tired of tides of NCQ firmware
> problems.
Another interesting thing: it seems that I'm unable to reprodu
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:35:05 +0900
Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeap, certainly. I'll ask people first before actually proceeding with
> the blacklisting. I'm just getting a bit tired of tides of NCQ firmware
> problems.
>
> Anyways, for the time being, you can easily turn off NCQ u
Paolo Ornati wrote:
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family: Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 and 7200.7 Plus family
Device Model: ST380817AS
I'll blacklist it. Thanks.
Ok. It will be better if someone else with the same HD could confirm.
It looks so strange that an HD that works f
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:46:01 +0900
Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know. It's a two years old ST380817AS.
> >
> > # smartctl -a -d ata /dev/sda
> >
> > smartctl version 5.36 [x86_64-pc-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-6 Bruce Allen
> > Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:53:21 +0059
Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 083 060 030Pre-fail Always
> >> - 204305750
> >> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 059 049 006Pre-fail Always
> >> - 215927244
> >> 195
Paolo Ornati wrote:
I don't know. It's a two years old ST380817AS.
# smartctl -a -d ata /dev/sda
smartctl version 5.36 [x86_64-pc-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-6 Bruce Allen
Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family: Seagate Barrac
Chr wrote:
>> 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 083 060 030Pre-fail Always
>> - 204305750
>> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 059 049 006Pre-fail Always
>> - 215927244
>> 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 059 049 000Old_age Always
On Sunday, 21. January 2007 20:25, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:32:02 -0600
> Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It looks like what you're getting is an actual NCQ write timing out.
> > That makes the bisect result not very interesting since obviously it
> > wouldn't
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:32:02 -0600
Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like what you're getting is an actual NCQ write timing out.
> That makes the bisect result not very interesting since obviously it
> wouldn't have issued any NCQ writes before NCQ support was
> implemented. S
Paolo Ornati wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:29:32 +0100
Paolo Ornati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry for starting a new thread, but I've deleted the messages from my
mail-box, and I'm sot sure it's the same problem as here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/14/108
Today I've decided to try X
Sorry for starting a new thread, but I've deleted the messages from my
mail-box, and I'm sot sure it's the same problem as here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/14/108
Today I've decided to try XFS... and just doing anything on it
(extracting a tarball, for example) make my SATA HD go crazy ;)
11 matches
Mail list logo