Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:50:04 +0100 | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: 2.6 more picky about IDE drives than 2.4 ? |
| |
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:00:52 +0100, Sven Köhler <skoehler@upb.de> wrote: > Hi,
Hi,
> i have many problems with kernel 2.6.10 since it won't run stable with > an IDE-device. It's an internal IDE-RAID subsystem. The DMA is > frequently disabled, and even writes/reads fail and the kernel reports > I/O-Errors for many sectors. The RAID-device doesn't report any errors > it it's own event-log. You can have a closer look at the error-messages > below. > > I'm mailing to the LKML, since i haven't been abled to reproduce the > problem with a kernel 2.4 bases system, but it randomly happens with 2.6 > kernels. Let's take the latest Knoppix as an example (it comes with both > kernels): > - if i boot kernel 2.4, i can stress test the harddisk as much as i > want. the kernel does report any problem and it doesn't disable DMA well > - if i boot kernel 2.6, after a while, there are the error-message below > in the log. "hdparm -k1" doesn't help, the kernel will disable DMA mode. > There was a also a bigger problems for two times now, where the kernel > refused to write to the devide, due to the I/O-Errors below. I'm very > sad, that i haven't the log-lines prior to the I/O-Errors.
You didn't give any information about your hardware (controller type, drives used etc). Please read REPORTING-BUGS in the kernel source directory. Also please find last working kernel version (2.5 or 2.6).
> I testes the RAID-subsystem with two different PC-systems. Always the > same result: 2.4 works, 2.6 does not. It's hard for me to reproduce the > Errors through. I'm still writing an application to reliably reproduce > them :-( Does anybody know a good stress-test perhaps? Sequential > reading doesn't seem to do the trick. > > What changes have been applied to the IDE subsystem from kernel 2.4 to > kernel 2.6? What may cause this different behaviour? What does > "status=0x51" mean? And why is "error=0x00" although the Error-Bit in > the status-byte has been set. (i guess this is what status=0x51 means). > > How can the behaviour of kernel 2.6 be reverted to the behaviour of > kernel 2.4? I already tried "hda=nowerr" in the append-line, but it > doesn't help either. Is it a Bug of kernel 2.6, or should i smash the > manufactures doors, to make them release a firmware-update of the > RAID-subsystem since it reports strange values to the OS?
Dunno, I don't have a magic ball... ;)
Bartlomiej - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |