Re: NFS client bug in 2.6.8-2.6.11

2005-03-15 Thread Neil Conway
Hi Bernardo (et al). Apologies - I've not been reading my account for a wee while. Then again, I probably don't have much useful to add to the debate right now ;-) --- Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anders Saaby wrote: > > Anyways if your server has only run with 2.6.10 - try

Re: NFS client bug in 2.6.8-2.6.11

2005-03-15 Thread Neil Conway
Hi Bernardo (et al). Apologies - I've not been reading my account for a wee while. Then again, I probably don't have much useful to add to the debate right now ;-) --- Bernardo Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anders Saaby wrote: Anyways if your server has only run with 2.6.10 - try

Re: NFS (ext3/VFS?) bug in 2.6.8/10

2005-02-14 Thread Neil Conway
--- Markus Plail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't help you, but just want to say that I also see those errors > on a local xfs file system, so it doesn't seem to be a NFS problem > I was first seeing this with 2.6.11-rc3-mm1 on a directory with 8k. Hmm, I played about a bit with XFS, but

Re: NFS (ext3/VFS?) bug in 2.6.8/10

2005-02-14 Thread Neil Conway
--- Markus Plail [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't help you, but just want to say that I also see those errors on a local xfs file system, so it doesn't seem to be a NFS problem I was first seeing this with 2.6.11-rc3-mm1 on a directory with 8k. Hmm, I played about a bit with XFS, but

Re: NFS (ext3/VFS?) bug in 2.6.8/10

2005-02-10 Thread Neil Conway
--- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > works even on machines with 256MB of RAM. The odd thing I haven't > figured out yet is that the fuslwr machine mentioned above has 2GB of > RAM, and ALL of it is HIGHMEM. Must be a kernel CONFIG option I > guess. > (Rant: what re

NFS (ext3/VFS?) bug in 2.6.8/10

2005-02-10 Thread Neil Conway
ar with it and predictably I got nowhere. I'm happy to try out patches and suggestions though. Apologies for the length! Any suggestions for what to try next? Many thanks, Neil Conway PS: originally, my test machine was failing REALLY fast. I noticed that it had about 896MB of LOWMEM, and the rest of the 2G

NFS (ext3/VFS?) bug in 2.6.8/10

2005-02-10 Thread Neil Conway
. Apologies for the length! Any suggestions for what to try next? Many thanks, Neil Conway PS: originally, my test machine was failing REALLY fast. I noticed that it had about 896MB of LOWMEM, and the rest of the 2GB was HIGHMEM. It failed every time LowFree blipped down to zero while NFS transfers were

Re: NFS (ext3/VFS?) bug in 2.6.8/10

2005-02-10 Thread Neil Conway
--- Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: works even on machines with 256MB of RAM. The odd thing I haven't figured out yet is that the fuslwr machine mentioned above has 2GB of RAM, and ALL of it is HIGHMEM. Must be a kernel CONFIG option I guess. (Rant: what replaces Configure.help

Re: 3TB disk hassles

2005-02-06 Thread Neil Conway
Argh... --- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi... > > --- Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No common x86 BIOS can understand any partition table. Booting is > > done by > > loading the first sector of the boot device and executing it. Th

Re: 3TB disk hassles

2005-02-06 Thread Neil Conway
Argh... --- Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi... --- Bodo Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No common x86 BIOS can understand any partition table. Booting is done by loading the first sector of the boot device and executing it. The common D'oh!! Red-face here. Can't believe

Re: 3TB disk hassles

2005-02-05 Thread Neil Conway
Hi... --- Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No common x86 BIOS can understand any partition table. Booting is > done by > loading the first sector of the boot device and executing it. The > common D'oh!! Red-face here. Can't believe my brainlessness. Thanks for putting me straight -

Re: 3TB disk hassles

2005-02-05 Thread Neil Conway
Hi... --- Bodo Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No common x86 BIOS can understand any partition table. Booting is done by loading the first sector of the boot device and executing it. The common D'oh!! Red-face here. Can't believe my brainlessness. Thanks for putting me straight - that

Re: 3TB disk hassles

2005-02-04 Thread Neil Conway
Howdy... --- "Pedro Venda (SYSADM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neil Conway wrote: > > Howdy... > > After much banging of heads on walls, I am throwing in the towel > and > > asking the experts ;-) ... To cut a long story short: > > Is it poss

Re: 3TB disk hassles

2005-02-04 Thread Neil Conway
Howdy... Apologies for the somewhat tardy reply; I've been concentrating on getting the hardware to play nice recently and not worrying so much about the software. --- Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was gentoo, and I even think I installed it right onto the GPT > disk, > so no

Re: 3TB disk hassles

2005-02-04 Thread Neil Conway
Howdy... Apologies for the somewhat tardy reply; I've been concentrating on getting the hardware to play nice recently and not worrying so much about the software. --- Tomas Carnecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was gentoo, and I even think I installed it right onto the GPT disk, so no

Re: 3TB disk hassles

2005-02-04 Thread Neil Conway
Howdy... --- Pedro Venda (SYSADM) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neil Conway wrote: Howdy... After much banging of heads on walls, I am throwing in the towel and asking the experts ;-) ... To cut a long story short: Is it possible to make a 3TB disk work properly in Linux? Our disk

Re: Problem with Via VT82C686A

2001-06-29 Thread Neil Conway
Hi... mythos wrote: > > I have installed a second hard drive in my system in the second > channel of my controller.But when I try to enable DMA I get: > hdc: DMA disabled > hdc: timeout waiting for DMA > ide_dmaproc: chipset supported ide_dma_timeout func only: 14 > hdc: irq timeout:

Re: Problem with Via VT82C686A

2001-06-29 Thread Neil Conway
Hi... mythos wrote: I have installed a second hard drive in my system in the second channel of my controller.But when I try to enable DMA I get: hdc: DMA disabled hdc: timeout waiting for DMA ide_dmaproc: chipset supported ide_dma_timeout func only: 14 hdc: irq timeout: status=0x58 {

Re: IDE corruption, 2.2, VIA chipset in PIO mode

2001-06-05 Thread Neil Conway
Alan Cox wrote: > > Sigh. Ah, I think I see a nice brown bag, in a nice deep hole. > > Its only a pointer. PIO speed cable errors tend to imply a bad cable problem > (eg not properly connected ribbon). So it could still be that the problem is > elsewhere Ah OK. Though a cable fault does seem

Re: IDE corruption, 2.2, VIA chipset in PIO mode

2001-06-05 Thread Neil Conway
Alan Cox wrote: Sigh. Ah, I think I see a nice brown bag, in a nice deep hole. Its only a pointer. PIO speed cable errors tend to imply a bad cable problem (eg not properly connected ribbon). So it could still be that the problem is elsewhere Ah OK. Though a cable fault does seem

IDE corruption, 2.2, VIA chipset in PIO mode

2001-06-04 Thread Neil Conway
Summary: we got IDE trashage in PIO mode with a VIA 686A IDE chipset, using 2.2.12-20smp (RH6.1 stock). Disk is an IBM 75GXP 75GB, mobo is Gigabyte GA-6VXDC7 (IIRC). Story: had the system hooked up with SCSI disk, needed more disk space, had IBM EIDE handy, stuck it in, no UDMA cable handy so

Re: [PATCH] SMP race in ext2 - metadata corruption.

2001-04-30 Thread Neil Conway
Hiya. Linus Torvalds wrote: > So anybody who depends on "dump" getting backups right is already playing > russian rulette with their backups. It's not at all guaranteed to get the > right results - you may end up having stale data in the buffer cache that > ends up being "backed up". > > Dump