pretty much any smartcommands...I was running something that got all
of the smart stats 1x per hour per disk...and this made it crash about
1x per week, if you were pushing the disks hard it appear to make it
even more likely to crash under the smart cmds, removing the commands
took things up to
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 09:13 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
> Do enough smartcmds and the entire board (all 4 ports) locked up and
> required a reboot, I quit doing smartcmds and stability went way up,
> but it was still not 100% stable.
Any chance you can give me an example of "enough smartcmds" ? IE
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 09:58 -0400, Jérôme Carretero wrote:
> Weird (I hadn't seen that you reported the 9235 working...), I have
> IOMMU problems with a 9235...
>
> What system are you running it on (when you say "power box", is it a
> beefy x86 computer or literally a PowerPC)?
> For me, AMD
On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:13:43 -0500
Roger Heflin wrote:
> I had a 9230...
> [...]
> Supplier support "claimed" it to be a Linux AHCI bug as the "claim"
> that their board correctly supports AHCI, even though all other AHCI
> boards work right in this exact same use case in the exact same
>
I had a 9230...on older kernels it worked "ok" so long as you did not
do any smart commands, I removed it and went to something that works.
Marvell appears to be hit and miss with some cards/chips working
right and some not...
Do enough smartcmds and the entire board (all 4 ports) locked up
On Fri, 30 May 2014 20:37:58 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> We've switched to a 9235 instead which seems to work fine.
Weird (I hadn't seen that you reported the 9235 working...), I have
IOMMU problems with a 9235...
What system are you running it on (when you say "power box", is it a
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 03:06 -0400, Jérôme Carretero wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:57:37 +1100
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > I've been trying a 9230 on a power box here (a 9235 on the same
> > machine works fine) and it blows up with an IOMMU violation early
> > during init.
>
> Hi,
>
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:57:37 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I've been trying a 9230 on a power box here (a 9235 on the same
> machine works fine) and it blows up with an IOMMU violation early
> during init.
Hi,
That's https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42679
if you haven't
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:57:37 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
I've been trying a 9230 on a power box here (a 9235 on the same
machine works fine) and it blows up with an IOMMU violation early
during init.
Hi,
That's
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 03:06 -0400, Jérôme Carretero wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:57:37 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
I've been trying a 9230 on a power box here (a 9235 on the same
machine works fine) and it blows up with an IOMMU violation early
during
On Fri, 30 May 2014 20:37:58 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
We've switched to a 9235 instead which seems to work fine.
Weird (I hadn't seen that you reported the 9235 working...), I have
IOMMU problems with a 9235...
What system are you running it on (when you say
I had a 9230...on older kernels it worked ok so long as you did not
do any smart commands, I removed it and went to something that works.
Marvell appears to be hit and miss with some cards/chips working
right and some not...
Do enough smartcmds and the entire board (all 4 ports) locked up and
On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:13:43 -0500
Roger Heflin rogerhef...@gmail.com wrote:
I had a 9230...
[...]
Supplier support claimed it to be a Linux AHCI bug as the claim
that their board correctly supports AHCI, even though all other AHCI
boards work right in this exact same use case in the exact
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 09:58 -0400, Jérôme Carretero wrote:
Weird (I hadn't seen that you reported the 9235 working...), I have
IOMMU problems with a 9235...
What system are you running it on (when you say power box, is it a
beefy x86 computer or literally a PowerPC)?
For me, AMD 990FX
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 09:13 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
Do enough smartcmds and the entire board (all 4 ports) locked up and
required a reboot, I quit doing smartcmds and stability went way up,
but it was still not 100% stable.
Any chance you can give me an example of enough smartcmds ? IE a
pretty much any smartcommands...I was running something that got all
of the smart stats 1x per hour per disk...and this made it crash about
1x per week, if you were pushing the disks hard it appear to make it
even more likely to crash under the smart cmds, removing the commands
took things up to
On 27/03/14 09:19 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:57:37PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I've contacted Marvell, but I was wondering if anybody here had already
experienced something similar or has an idea of what else the chip
might be doing wrong so we can try to find a
On 27/03/14 09:19 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:57:37PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I've contacted Marvell, but I was wondering if anybody here had already
experienced something similar or has an idea of what else the chip
might be doing wrong so we can try to find a
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:57:37PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I've contacted Marvell, but I was wondering if anybody here had already
> experienced something similar or has an idea of what else the chip
> might be doing wrong so we can try to find a workaround ?
No idea. First time
Hi Folks !
Do that ring any bell ?
I've been trying a 9230 on a power box here (a 9235 on the same machine
works fine) and it blows up with an IOMMU violation early during init.
>From what I can tell the scenario is:
- So we still haven't issued any command per-se, all our DMA command
buffers
Hi Folks !
Do that ring any bell ?
I've been trying a 9230 on a power box here (a 9235 on the same machine
works fine) and it blows up with an IOMMU violation early during init.
From what I can tell the scenario is:
- So we still haven't issued any command per-se, all our DMA command
buffers
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:57:37PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I've contacted Marvell, but I was wondering if anybody here had already
experienced something similar or has an idea of what else the chip
might be doing wrong so we can try to find a workaround ?
No idea. First time to
22 matches
Mail list logo
