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

Reply via email to