Hi John,
That might be it... my output of lspci shows I 'm using the same
driver. However,I only have problems once and a while when waking up
the laptop from a suspend, I turned auto-suspend off and it 's running
ok for a week now. I 'm not a real linux expert, what is your advice ?
Should I also switch to another driver ? If so, how is that done ?
thanks in advance,
Wim
00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation ICH9M/M-E 2 port SATA IDE
Controller (rev 03) (prog-if 8f [Master SecP SecO PriP PriO])
Subsystem: Dell Device 024f
Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 19
I/O ports at 6e70 [size=8]
I/O ports at 6e78 [size=4]
I/O ports at 6e80 [size=8]
I/O ports at 6e88 [size=4]
I/O ports at 6ea0 [size=16]
I/O ports at 6e90 [size=16]
Capabilities: [70] Power Management version 3
Capabilities: [b0] PCIe advanced features <?>
Kernel driver in use: ata_piix
John Prather wrote:
> Here's some info which may (or may not?) help track this down.
>
> In the past 6 days, I've installed ubuntu jaunty 9.04 64bit on a new
> T500 laptop no less than 6 times. As others here report, I would start
> doing updates/upgrades, and shortly afterward would run into various
> issues which appear to all be symptoms of corrupted filesystem:
>
> * Faulty tree errors doing apt-get update
> * Errors about /var/lib/dpkg/status content
> * Errors about /var/lib/dpkg/info/something.list having blank lines
>
> Then, at some point, dmesg would indicate that there was some ext3-fs or
> ext4-fs issue, and that journaling is aborted, and that the filesystem
> is remounted read-only, which would of course then cause all variety of
> desktop app misbehavior.
>
> A coworker with another T500 that was shipped with mine, is experiencing
> the same issue on his hardware.
>
> Another coworker with a T500, who got theirs in a different order, had
> been running Jaunty 64bit for a month now with no such problems, so we
> started to compare lspci output to see what chips might differ in the
> two T500's that would have one work solidly for a month while the other
> can't go 36 hours without corrupting its fs.
>
> The only glaring difference we could see was that his laptop, which
> wasn't experiencing any problems, had a disk controller with device
> 20f8, using ahci driver, while mine was using the same model controller,
> but was listed with a device id 20f7, and which was controlled by
> ata_piix driver.
>
> Working:
>
> 00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation ICH9M/M-E SATA AHCI Controller
> (rev 03) (prog-if 01)
> Subsystem: Lenovo Device 20f8
> Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 2298
> I/O ports at 1c40 [size=8]
> I/O ports at 1834 [size=4]
> I/O ports at 1838 [size=8]
> I/O ports at 1830 [size=4]
> I/O ports at 1c20 [size=32]
> Memory at fc226000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=2K]
> Capabilities: <access denied>
> Kernel driver in use: ahci
>
> Failing:
>
> 00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation ICH9M/M-E 2 port SATA IDE Controller
> (rev 03) (prog-if 8a [Master SecP PriP])
> Subsystem: Lenovo Device 20f7
> Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 16
> I/O ports at 01f0 [size=8]
> I/O ports at 03f4 [size=1]
> I/O ports at 0170 [size=8]
> I/O ports at 0374 [size=1]
> I/O ports at 1c20 [size=16]
> I/O ports at 1830 [size=16]
> Capabilities: [70] Power Management version 3
> Capabilities: [b0] PCIe advanced features <?>
> Kernel driver in use: ata_piix
>
>
> I discovered that I could switch my disk controller device from 20f7 to 20f8,
> and use the ahci driver instead of ata_piix driver by going into my Bios
> settings, and under Config for the SATA controller, set it to "AHCI" instead
> of "compatible".
>
> I'd suggest that compatible mode might have had issues, except from the
> amount of complaints here, it's just as likely that ata_piix is buggy
> when used on this hardware.
>
> It'll be a couple days before I'm 100% comfortable that the issue is
> resolved for me, but I'm pretty sure switching the disk
> controller/behavior to match what has been working for other coworkers
> should account for the only difference between their hardware setup
> which hasn't run into this issue, and mine, which hadn't been able to
> escape it.
>
>
--
Corrupted file system ext3 after Jaunty 64 upgrade
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/371191
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
