Hi John, That might be it... my output of lspci shows I 'm using the same driver. However,I only have problems once and a while when waking up the laptop from a suspend, I turned auto-suspend off and it 's running ok for a week now. I 'm not a real linux expert, what is your advice ? Should I also switch to another driver ? If so, how is that done ?
thanks in advance, Wim 00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation ICH9M/M-E 2 port SATA IDE Controller (rev 03) (prog-if 8f [Master SecP SecO PriP PriO]) Subsystem: Dell Device 024f Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 19 I/O ports at 6e70 [size=8] I/O ports at 6e78 [size=4] I/O ports at 6e80 [size=8] I/O ports at 6e88 [size=4] I/O ports at 6ea0 [size=16] I/O ports at 6e90 [size=16] Capabilities: [70] Power Management version 3 Capabilities: [b0] PCIe advanced features <?> Kernel driver in use: ata_piix John Prather wrote: > Here's some info which may (or may not?) help track this down. > > In the past 6 days, I've installed ubuntu jaunty 9.04 64bit on a new > T500 laptop no less than 6 times. As others here report, I would start > doing updates/upgrades, and shortly afterward would run into various > issues which appear to all be symptoms of corrupted filesystem: > > * Faulty tree errors doing apt-get update > * Errors about /var/lib/dpkg/status content > * Errors about /var/lib/dpkg/info/something.list having blank lines > > Then, at some point, dmesg would indicate that there was some ext3-fs or > ext4-fs issue, and that journaling is aborted, and that the filesystem > is remounted read-only, which would of course then cause all variety of > desktop app misbehavior. > > A coworker with another T500 that was shipped with mine, is experiencing > the same issue on his hardware. > > Another coworker with a T500, who got theirs in a different order, had > been running Jaunty 64bit for a month now with no such problems, so we > started to compare lspci output to see what chips might differ in the > two T500's that would have one work solidly for a month while the other > can't go 36 hours without corrupting its fs. > > The only glaring difference we could see was that his laptop, which > wasn't experiencing any problems, had a disk controller with device > 20f8, using ahci driver, while mine was using the same model controller, > but was listed with a device id 20f7, and which was controlled by > ata_piix driver. > > Working: > > 00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation ICH9M/M-E SATA AHCI Controller > (rev 03) (prog-if 01) > Subsystem: Lenovo Device 20f8 > Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 2298 > I/O ports at 1c40 [size=8] > I/O ports at 1834 [size=4] > I/O ports at 1838 [size=8] > I/O ports at 1830 [size=4] > I/O ports at 1c20 [size=32] > Memory at fc226000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=2K] > Capabilities: <access denied> > Kernel driver in use: ahci > > Failing: > > 00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation ICH9M/M-E 2 port SATA IDE Controller > (rev 03) (prog-if 8a [Master SecP PriP]) > Subsystem: Lenovo Device 20f7 > Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 16 > I/O ports at 01f0 [size=8] > I/O ports at 03f4 [size=1] > I/O ports at 0170 [size=8] > I/O ports at 0374 [size=1] > I/O ports at 1c20 [size=16] > I/O ports at 1830 [size=16] > Capabilities: [70] Power Management version 3 > Capabilities: [b0] PCIe advanced features <?> > Kernel driver in use: ata_piix > > > I discovered that I could switch my disk controller device from 20f7 to 20f8, > and use the ahci driver instead of ata_piix driver by going into my Bios > settings, and under Config for the SATA controller, set it to "AHCI" instead > of "compatible". > > I'd suggest that compatible mode might have had issues, except from the > amount of complaints here, it's just as likely that ata_piix is buggy > when used on this hardware. > > It'll be a couple days before I'm 100% comfortable that the issue is > resolved for me, but I'm pretty sure switching the disk > controller/behavior to match what has been working for other coworkers > should account for the only difference between their hardware setup > which hasn't run into this issue, and mine, which hadn't been able to > escape it. > > -- Corrupted file system ext3 after Jaunty 64 upgrade https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/371191 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs