Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 03:45:53PM +0100, Sren Schmidt wrote..
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 03:37:07PM +0100, Sren Schmidt wrote..
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:44:05PM +0100, Sren Schmidt wrote..
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:02:08PM +0100, Sren Schmidt wrote..
Wilko Bulte wrote:
Hi Soren,
I just went to 6.1-PRE on my main machine, coming from 6.0-STABLE
of roughly end of december.
And I hit some stuff that really worries me:
- the freshly built kernel keels over with (hand transcribed):
ata3: reiniting channel SATA connect ...
SATA connected
sata_connect_devices 0x1 <ATA_MASTER>
ad6: req=0xC35ba0c8 SETFEATURES SETTRANSFERMODE semaphore timeout
!! DANGER Will RObinson !!
(... is where I cannot read my own handwriting, it scrolled quite
fast on
the screen..)
Boot device is a SATA RAID1 on a Promise 2300.
Hmm, that should not happen. Could you try to backstep just ATA to
before the MFC, that is 24/1/06 and let me know if that helps please ?
First impression is that the problem is gone. None of the previously
reported errors are seen. I am running a level 0 dump from disk to
disk
to see if the box remains stable. Given that this is my primary
machine
I sure hope it will be :-)
Another snag is that my ad10 disk on 6.0-STABLE suddenly became ad12
on
6.1-PRE
Hmm that is because there is only 2 ports on your promise which is
now correctly identified, before it was errounsly found as 3 ports.
Ah, OK. I would suggest a note to the Release Note writers would be a
good
thing, devices changing location after an upgrade in the -stable branch
is unnerving ;-)
Well, the good thing is that I can reproduce the error here, the bad
thing is that it slipped through testing on -current...
Oh, well, I'll look into it ASAP...
Thank you Soren!
OK, had a few this afternoon, could you try this patch and let me know
if it helps, at least it makes the problem go away on my testbed..
Is this relative to HEAD or RELENG_6? I cannot / will not go to HEAD
with this machine (my main production box.. :-)
Doesn't matter, ATA is the same on both...
OK, I was not sure if they were 100% identical.
The patch at first impression seems to have eliminated the problem.
Good seems I'm on the right track at least.
Interestingly enough ad10 remained ad10 with the patch applied?
Yeah, thats intentional, I though we better not break POLA here..
I'll put some load on to see what happens.
Let me know how that turns out, I'll clean things up a bit and get it
committed to -current, then get permission to MFC when we are sure it
fixes the problem...
-Søren
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
