oops, I forgot to send this to linux-kernel as well...
- Original Message -
From: "Nicholas Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David D.W. Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: VT82C686A corruption with
oops, I forgot to send this to linux-kernel as well...
- Original Message -
From: "Nicholas Knight" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "David D.W. Downey" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: VT82C686A corruption with 2.4.x
- Original
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:06:53 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
>
>> Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
>
>Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the problems
>many people had with the KT7 in the
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
> > >
> > > Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
> >
> > Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the problems
> > many
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
>
> > Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
>
> Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the problems
> many people had with the KT7 in the past.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the problems
many people had with the KT7 in the past.
> But you might not
> want to run your PCI clock at 34
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, safemode wrote:
> Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>
> > Ugh. What chips your KA7 has? As far as I know the KX133 chip (vt8731)
> > can't do asynchronous PCI, allowing for 2x, 3x and 4x FSB/PCI divisors
> > only. So I don't a way to have your FSB at 114 and your PCI at 34 with
> > this
Yeah, I'm seriously beginning to think it's a board specific issue. If I
drop the RAM count down to 768MB I get far less drops in app deaths
now. I'm living in Sunnyvale CA which is part of the Rolling Blackouts
designated spots in CA. Ever since the power companies have been
instituting this
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 08:52:58PM -0500, safemode wrote:
>
> > My KA7 can go over 160Mhz FSB
> > Yes i know about memory speed limitions ..that's why you are able to choose
> > HW clock - PCI so at those high speeds it's actually say 120Mhz - 33
> > keeping you
Yeah, I'm seriously beginning to think it's a board specific issue. If I
drop the RAM count down to 768MB I get far less drops in app deaths
now. I'm living in Sunnyvale CA which is part of the Rolling Blackouts
designated spots in CA. Ever since the power companies have been
instituting this
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, safemode wrote:
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
Ugh. What chips your KA7 has? As far as I know the KX133 chip (vt8731)
can't do asynchronous PCI, allowing for 2x, 3x and 4x FSB/PCI divisors
only. So I don't a way to have your FSB at 114 and your PCI at 34 with
this chip.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the problems
many people had with the KT7 in the past.
But you might not
want to run your PCI clock at 34
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the problems
many people had with the KT7 in the past.
What
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the problems
many people had with
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 07:46:31PM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> > yea i know. . same mode i also had a big problem with DMA timeouts on
> > 2.4 so .. i dont know what's up with 2.4 and my motherboard ...2.2
> > hasn't shown a single irq or DMA error yet since going back to it.
> >
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 08:52:58PM -0500, safemode wrote:
> My KA7 can go over 160Mhz FSB
> Yes i know about memory speed limitions ..that's why you are able to choose
> HW clock - PCI so at those high speeds it's actually say 120Mhz - 33
> keeping you below or near 100 and not well over
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:57:45PM -0500, safemode wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > better than i ever got with 2.4 even when only one drive was on a channel.
> > > Right now my k7-2 750 is at 849mhz with a FSB of 114Mhz and PCI at 34Mhz.
> >
> > Hint: people who overclock machines get suprising
Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, safemode wrote:
>
> > yea i know. . same mode i also had a big problem with DMA timeouts on
> > 2.4 so .. i dont know what's up with 2.4 and my motherboard ...2.2
> > hasn't shown a single irq or DMA error yet since going back to it.
> >
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, safemode wrote:
> yea i know. . same mode i also had a big problem with DMA timeouts on
> 2.4 so .. i dont know what's up with 2.4 and my motherboard ...2.2
> hasn't shown a single irq or DMA error yet since going back to it.
> currently 2.2.19-pre7 is using UDMA4
Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, safemode wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering... Perhaps it's a problem motherboard specific. I'm
> > using the KA7 and saw pretty bad problems (extreme fs corruption)
> > and bad latency. Perhaps the K7V and the KT7's dont have this problem.
> > I dont see
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, safemode wrote:
> I'm wondering... Perhaps it's a problem motherboard specific. I'm
> using the KA7 and saw pretty bad problems (extreme fs corruption)
> and bad latency. Perhaps the K7V and the KT7's dont have this problem.
> I dont see any of the problems with dma enabled
Alan Cox wrote:
> > better than i ever got with 2.4 even when only one drive was on a channel.
> > Right now my k7-2 750 is at 849mhz with a FSB of 114Mhz and PCI at 34Mhz.
>
> Hint: people who overclock machines get suprising odd results and bad stuff
> happens. Please dont waste developers
> better than i ever got with 2.4 even when only one drive was on a channel.
> Right now my k7-2 750 is at 849mhz with a FSB of 114Mhz and PCI at 34Mhz.
Hint: people who overclock machines get suprising odd results and bad stuff
happens. Please dont waste developers time unless you can reproduce
Mark Hahn wrote:
> >From what I gather this chipset on 2.4.x is only stable if you cripple just about
>everything that makes
> > it worth having (udma, 2nd ide channel etc etc) ?does it even work when all
>that's done now or is
> > it fully functional?
>
> it seems to be fully functional
Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> >>From what I gather this chipset on 2.4.x is only stable if you cripple just about
>everything that makes
> > it worth having (udma, 2nd ide channel etc etc) ?does it even work when all
>that's done now or is
> > it fully functional?
>
> it seems to be fully
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > > 1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
> > > true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
> > >
Umm, since the only 2 controllers in the machine are the VIA Vt82C686A and
the Promise PDC20265, yes I
>From what I gather this chipset on 2.4.x is only stable if you cripple just about
>everything that makes
> it worth having (udma, 2nd ide channel etc etc) ?does it even work when all
>that's done now or is
> it fully functional?
it seems to be fully functional for some or most people,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:48:41AM -0500, safemode wrote:
> From what I gather this chipset on 2.4.x is only stable if you
> cripple just about everything that makes
> it worth having (udma, 2nd ide channel etc etc) ?does it even
> work when all that's done now or is it fully functional?
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:55:25PM -0800, David Raufeisen wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 08:36:42 (+0100),
> Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > 1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
> > true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
>
David Raufeisen wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 08:36:42 (+0100),
> Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > 1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
> > true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
> >
>
> Hi, Are you referring to Mark or me?
David Raufeisen wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 08:36:42 (+0100),
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
Hi!
1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
Hi, Are you referring to Mark or me?
I have
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:55:25PM -0800, David Raufeisen wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 08:36:42 (+0100),
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
Hi!
1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
Hi, Are
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:48:41AM -0500, safemode wrote:
From what I gather this chipset on 2.4.x is only stable if you
cripple just about everything that makes
it worth having (udma, 2nd ide channel etc etc) ?does it even
work when all that's done now or is it fully functional?
For
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
Umm, since the only 2 controllers in the machine are the VIA Vt82C686A and
the Promise PDC20265, yes I AM
Mark Hahn wrote:
From what I gather this chipset on 2.4.x is only stable if you cripple just about
everything that makes
it worth having (udma, 2nd ide channel etc etc) ?does it even work when all
that's done now or is
it fully functional?
it seems to be fully functional for
Mark Hahn wrote:
From what I gather this chipset on 2.4.x is only stable if you cripple just about
everything that makes
it worth having (udma, 2nd ide channel etc etc) ?does it even work when all
that's done now or is
it fully functional?
it seems to be fully functional for some
better than i ever got with 2.4 even when only one drive was on a channel.
Right now my k7-2 750 is at 849mhz with a FSB of 114Mhz and PCI at 34Mhz.
Hint: people who overclock machines get suprising odd results and bad stuff
happens. Please dont waste developers time unless you can reproduce
Alan Cox wrote:
better than i ever got with 2.4 even when only one drive was on a channel.
Right now my k7-2 750 is at 849mhz with a FSB of 114Mhz and PCI at 34Mhz.
Hint: people who overclock machines get suprising odd results and bad stuff
happens. Please dont waste developers time
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, safemode wrote:
I'm wondering... Perhaps it's a problem motherboard specific. I'm
using the KA7 and saw pretty bad problems (extreme fs corruption)
and bad latency. Perhaps the K7V and the KT7's dont have this problem.
I dont see any of the problems with dma enabled on
Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, safemode wrote:
I'm wondering... Perhaps it's a problem motherboard specific. I'm
using the KA7 and saw pretty bad problems (extreme fs corruption)
and bad latency. Perhaps the K7V and the KT7's dont have this problem.
I dont see any of the
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, safemode wrote:
yea i know. . same mode i also had a big problem with DMA timeouts on
2.4 so .. i dont know what's up with 2.4 and my motherboard ...2.2
hasn't shown a single irq or DMA error yet since going back to it.
currently 2.2.19-pre7 is using UDMA4
Byron Stanoszek wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, safemode wrote:
yea i know. . same mode i also had a big problem with DMA timeouts on
2.4 so .. i dont know what's up with 2.4 and my motherboard ...2.2
hasn't shown a single irq or DMA error yet since going back to it.
currently
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:57:45PM -0500, safemode wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
better than i ever got with 2.4 even when only one drive was on a channel.
Right now my k7-2 750 is at 849mhz with a FSB of 114Mhz and PCI at 34Mhz.
Hint: people who overclock machines get suprising odd results
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 08:52:58PM -0500, safemode wrote:
My KA7 can go over 160Mhz FSB
Yes i know about memory speed limitions ..that's why you are able to choose
HW clock - PCI so at those high speeds it's actually say 120Mhz - 33
keeping you below or near 100 and not well over the
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 07:46:31PM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
yea i know. . same mode i also had a big problem with DMA timeouts on
2.4 so .. i dont know what's up with 2.4 and my motherboard ...2.2
hasn't shown a single irq or DMA error yet since going back to it.
On Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 08:36:42 (+0100),
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
> true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
>
Hi, Are you referring to Mark or me?
I have drives on my VIA (only..) IDE
Hi!
1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
2) In your original message you suggest bs=1024M, which isn't a very
good idea, even on a 768 MB system. Here with bs=1024k it seems to run
fine.
3) You sent
OK, just completed the upgrade to 2.4.1-pre12 + via82c.diff.
SYSTEM SPECS CHANGES
===
Shut off ACPI
Shut off 2nd IDE controller in BIOS
Shut off APM
Disabled UDMA support in BIOS
Removed 256MB RAM (768M total RAM) *
Everything is running stabler now. Here's what I've got
OK, here is the output of lspci -v on the SMP box I'm having trouble with
as requested...
00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C691 [Apollo PRO] (rev c4)
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 0
Memory at d000 (32-bit, prefetchable)
Capabilities: [a0]
bash-2.04# dmesg | grep -i udma
VP_IDE: VIA vt82c686a IDE UDMA66 controller on pci0:7.1
hda: 30015216 sectors (15368 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=1868/255/63, UDMA(66)
hdb: 80041248 sectors (40981 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=4982/255/63, UDMA(66)
hdc: ATAPI 52X CD-ROM drive, 192kB Cache, UDMA(33)
Actually what rumors are you hearing?
Right now I can tell you from personal experience that the VIA VT82C686A
chipset is causing kernel deaths, corrupted data on my drives, and UDMA
issues (meaning that when I enable the UDMA support the kernel
CONSISTENTLY crashes.)
This is all pre
So you have not seen any corruption, but are willing to do testing. Very
kind, but you could have choosen a better subject, I think. There are a
lot more rumours that facts regarding the VIA drivers right now.
/Tobias
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> I have a Soyo K7VIA
I have a Soyo K7VIA motherboard which uses VT82C686A, with an 800mhz Athlon
CPU in it.
So far I've never run a 2.3* or 2.4* kernel on it, I've only done that on my
P3 using a propriatory micron motherboard that uses an intel BX2 chipset.
However, I recently trashed my linux installation (doing
I have a Soyo K7VIA motherboard which uses VT82C686A, with an 800mhz Athlon
CPU in it.
So far I've never run a 2.3* or 2.4* kernel on it, I've only done that on my
P3 using a propriatory micron motherboard that uses an intel BX2 chipset.
However, I recently trashed my linux installation (doing
So you have not seen any corruption, but are willing to do testing. Very
kind, but you could have choosen a better subject, I think. There are a
lot more rumours that facts regarding the VIA drivers right now.
/Tobias
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
I have a Soyo K7VIA
Actually what rumors are you hearing?
Right now I can tell you from personal experience that the VIA VT82C686A
chipset is causing kernel deaths, corrupted data on my drives, and UDMA
issues (meaning that when I enable the UDMA support the kernel
CONSISTENTLY crashes.)
This is all pre
bash-2.04# dmesg | grep -i udma
VP_IDE: VIA vt82c686a IDE UDMA66 controller on pci0:7.1
hda: 30015216 sectors (15368 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=1868/255/63, UDMA(66)
hdb: 80041248 sectors (40981 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=4982/255/63, UDMA(66)
hdc: ATAPI 52X CD-ROM drive, 192kB Cache, UDMA(33)
OK, here is the output of lspci -v on the SMP box I'm having trouble with
as requested...
00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C691 [Apollo PRO] (rev c4)
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 0
Memory at d000 (32-bit, prefetchable)
Capabilities: [a0]
OK, just completed the upgrade to 2.4.1-pre12 + via82c.diff.
SYSTEM SPECS CHANGES
===
Shut off ACPI
Shut off 2nd IDE controller in BIOS
Shut off APM
Disabled UDMA support in BIOS
Removed 256MB RAM (768M total RAM) *
Everything is running stabler now. Here's what I've got
Hi!
1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
2) In your original message you suggest bs=1024M, which isn't a very
good idea, even on a 768 MB system. Here with bs=1024k it seems to run
fine.
3) You sent
On Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 08:36:42 (+0100),
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
Hi!
1) You don't seem to have any drives on the VIA controller. If this is
true, I don't think this can be a VIA IDE driver problem.
Hi, Are you referring to Mark or me?
I have drives on my VIA (only..) IDE
63 matches
Mail list logo
