Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-17 Thread Jason T. Collins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I remember seeing something about how some via ide chipsets (686b I think) > and [some?] ide promise controllers had problems with data corruption on > the IBM dtla-series udma drives, and that IBM stated the problem was with > the controllers. Is there a chance

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-17 Thread Jason T. Collins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember seeing something about how some via ide chipsets (686b I think) and [some?] ide promise controllers had problems with data corruption on the IBM dtla-series udma drives, and that IBM stated the problem was with the controllers. Is there a chance a

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Rachel Greenham
Christian Bornträger wrote: >>If possible, can you remove the hard disc from the promise and attach it on >>the VIA-Controller and test if the problem still occurs? (prepare a bootdisc >>if you cannot boot. Propably, you have to pass a new root-partition to the >>kernel) >>I hardly believe

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Rachel Greenham
Justin Guyett wrote: >I remember seeing something about how some via ide chipsets (686b I think) >and [some?] ide promise controllers had problems with data corruption on >the IBM dtla-series udma drives, and that IBM stated the problem was with >the controllers. Is there a chance a problem

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Justin Guyett
I remember seeing something about how some via ide chipsets (686b I think) and [some?] ide promise controllers had problems with data corruption on the IBM dtla-series udma drives, and that IBM stated the problem was with the controllers. Is there a chance a problem like that could be screwing

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Rachel Greenham
Thomas Molina wrote: >I've tried most of the tests you all have been discussing, with a couple >of exceptions. I haven't tried bonnie ( don't even know where to get it >or what it is supposed to test ). > Well, it's part of the SuSE distribution at least, and it tests hard disk performance -

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Christian Bornträger
> I'm certainly willing to provide any data it's decided is necessary to > collect to make the correlations. I'll even volunteer to be the . > bit different - I have the hard drive on the promise interface (ide2) and If possible, can you remove the hard disc from the promise and attach it on

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Thomas Molina
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Rachel Greenham wrote: > Thomas Molina wrote: > > >So is there no correlation from particular hardware to problems reported? > >I'm running the A7V133 with a Western Digital WD300BB UDMA 5 drive on > >kernel 2.4.5 with no trouble. > > > Well, I don't know. I'd guess there'd

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Rachel Greenham
Thomas Molina wrote: >So is there no correlation from particular hardware to problems reported? >I'm running the A7V133 with a Western Digital WD300BB UDMA 5 drive on >kernel 2.4.5 with no trouble. > Well, I don't know. I'd guess there'd *have* to be some correlation, but we're not gathering

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Rachel Greenham
Thomas Molina wrote: So is there no correlation from particular hardware to problems reported? I'm running the A7V133 with a Western Digital WD300BB UDMA 5 drive on kernel 2.4.5 with no trouble. Well, I don't know. I'd guess there'd *have* to be some correlation, but we're not gathering enough

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Thomas Molina
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Rachel Greenham wrote: Thomas Molina wrote: So is there no correlation from particular hardware to problems reported? I'm running the A7V133 with a Western Digital WD300BB UDMA 5 drive on kernel 2.4.5 with no trouble. Well, I don't know. I'd guess there'd *have* to

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Christian Bornträger
I'm certainly willing to provide any data it's decided is necessary to collect to make the correlations. I'll even volunteer to be the . bit different - I have the hard drive on the promise interface (ide2) and If possible, can you remove the hard disc from the promise and attach it on the

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Rachel Greenham
Thomas Molina wrote: I've tried most of the tests you all have been discussing, with a couple of exceptions. I haven't tried bonnie ( don't even know where to get it or what it is supposed to test ). Well, it's part of the SuSE distribution at least, and it tests hard disk performance - you

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Justin Guyett
I remember seeing something about how some via ide chipsets (686b I think) and [some?] ide promise controllers had problems with data corruption on the IBM dtla-series udma drives, and that IBM stated the problem was with the controllers. Is there a chance a problem like that could be screwing

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Rachel Greenham
Justin Guyett wrote: I remember seeing something about how some via ide chipsets (686b I think) and [some?] ide promise controllers had problems with data corruption on the IBM dtla-series udma drives, and that IBM stated the problem was with the controllers. Is there a chance a problem like

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-16 Thread Rachel Greenham
Christian Bornträger wrote: If possible, can you remove the hard disc from the promise and attach it on the VIA-Controller and test if the problem still occurs? (prepare a bootdisc if you cannot boot. Propably, you have to pass a new root-partition to the kernel) I hardly believe that the

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-12 Thread Rachel Greenham
Christian Bornträger wrote: >>CPU: Athlon 1.33 GHz with 266MHz FSB >>Mobo: Asus A7V133 with 266MHz FSB, UltraDMA100 (PDC20265 according to >> > >So you put your IBM drive on the promise, right? > Oh yes. :-) > >Removing the hard disc from the promise controller and attaching it on the

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-12 Thread Christian Bornträger
> With DMA (UDMA Mode 5) enabled, my machine crashes on kernel versions > from 2.4.3-ac7 onwards up to 2.4.5 right up to 2.4.5-ac13. 2.4.3 vanilla > and 2.4.3-ac6 are completely stable. -ac7 of course is when a load of > VIA fixes were done. :-} I encountered the same problem after 2.4.3-ac6. >

VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-12 Thread Rachel Greenham
This seems to just run and run... Sorry I couldn't report this earlier, but I've only just got this machine... With DMA (UDMA Mode 5) enabled, my machine crashes on kernel versions from 2.4.3-ac7 onwards up to 2.4.5 right up to 2.4.5-ac13. 2.4.3 vanilla and 2.4.3-ac6 are completely stable.

VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-12 Thread Rachel Greenham
This seems to just run and run... Sorry I couldn't report this earlier, but I've only just got this machine... With DMA (UDMA Mode 5) enabled, my machine crashes on kernel versions from 2.4.3-ac7 onwards up to 2.4.5 right up to 2.4.5-ac13. 2.4.3 vanilla and 2.4.3-ac6 are completely stable.

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-12 Thread Christian Bornträger
With DMA (UDMA Mode 5) enabled, my machine crashes on kernel versions from 2.4.3-ac7 onwards up to 2.4.5 right up to 2.4.5-ac13. 2.4.3 vanilla and 2.4.3-ac6 are completely stable. -ac7 of course is when a load of VIA fixes were done. :-} I encountered the same problem after 2.4.3-ac6. CPU:

Re: VIA KT133A crash *post* 2.4.3-ac6

2001-06-12 Thread Rachel Greenham
Christian Bornträger wrote: CPU: Athlon 1.33 GHz with 266MHz FSB Mobo: Asus A7V133 with 266MHz FSB, UltraDMA100 (PDC20265 according to So you put your IBM drive on the promise, right? Oh yes. :-) Removing the hard disc from the promise controller and attaching it on the VIA-Controller