On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Eric Schrock wrote: > Also, were you ever able to get this disk behind a SAS transport (X4540, > J4400, J4500, etc)? It would be interesting to see how hardware SATL > deals with this invalid data. Output from 'smartctl -d sat' and > 'smartctl -d scsi' on such a system would show both the ATA data and the > translated SCSI data. My guess is that it just gives up at the first > invalid version record, something we should probably be doing.
Phil Steinbachs gave you some data from an X25-E in a J4400 attached to an X4240 via an LSI 1068E based HBA, as well as one in one of the X4240's SAS slots connected to the internal Adaptec RAID controller: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/fm-discuss/2009-June/000432.html and: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/fm-discuss/2009-June/000435.html Your last email on the subject was: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/fm-discuss/2009-June/000447.html in which you said: "The primary thing is that this drive is completely busted - it's reporting totally invalid data in response to the ATA READ EXT LOG command for log 0x07 (Extended SMART self-test log). The spec defines that byte 0 must be 0x1 and that byte 1 is reserved." Phil might still be in a position to run smartctl on the drives if you're still interested in the data. I guess this is why you're now saying the drive is returning invalid data, I had forgotten the details, that was almost three months ago. In any case, I agree with you that the firmware is buggy; however I disagree with you as to the outcome of that bug. The drive is not returning random garbage, it has *one* byte wrong. Other than that all of the data seems ok, at least to my inexpert eyes. smartctl under Linux issues a warning about that invalid byte and reports everything else ok. Solaris on an x4500 evidentally barfs over that invalid byte and returns garbage. Overall, I think the Linux approach seems more useful. Be strict in what you generate, and lenient in what you accept ;), or something like that. As I already said, it would be really really nice if the Solaris driver could be fixed to be a little more forgiving and deal better with the drive, but I've got no expectation that it should be done. But it could be :). Thanks again for your help. I apologize if I've been a bit antagonistic, I tend to go "dog with a bone" when I start debating something. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss