On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 03:45:53PM +0100, Sren Schmidt wrote.. > Wilko Bulte wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 03:37:07PM +0100, Sren Schmidt wrote.. > >>Wilko Bulte wrote: > >>>On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:44:05PM +0100, Sren Schmidt wrote.. > >>>>Wilko Bulte wrote: > >>>>>On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:02:08PM +0100, Sren Schmidt wrote.. > >>>>>>Wilko Bulte wrote: > >>>>>>>Hi Soren, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I just went to 6.1-PRE on my main machine, coming from 6.0-STABLE > >>>>>>>of roughly end of december. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>And I hit some stuff that really worries me: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>- the freshly built kernel keels over with (hand transcribed): > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>ata3: reiniting channel SATA connect ... > >>>>>>>SATA connected > >>>>>>>sata_connect_devices 0x1 <ATA_MASTER> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>ad6: req=0xC35ba0c8 SETFEATURES SETTRANSFERMODE semaphore timeout > >>>>>>>!! DANGER Will RObinson !! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>(... is where I cannot read my own handwriting, it scrolled quite > >>>>>>>fast on > >>>>>>>the screen..) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Boot device is a SATA RAID1 on a Promise 2300. > >>>>>>Hmm, that should not happen. Could you try to backstep just ATA to > >>>>>>before the MFC, that is 24/1/06 and let me know if that helps please ? > >>>>>First impression is that the problem is gone. None of the previously > >>>>>reported errors are seen. I am running a level 0 dump from disk to > >>>>>disk > >>>>>to see if the box remains stable. Given that this is my primary > >>>>>machine > >>>>>I sure hope it will be :-) > >>>>> > >>>>>>>Another snag is that my ad10 disk on 6.0-STABLE suddenly became ad12 > >>>>>>>on > >>>>>>>6.1-PRE > >>>>>>Hmm that is because there is only 2 ports on your promise which is > >>>>>>now correctly identified, before it was errounsly found as 3 ports. > >>>>>Ah, OK. I would suggest a note to the Release Note writers would be a > >>>>>good > >>>>>thing, devices changing location after an upgrade in the -stable branch > >>>>>is unnerving ;-) > >>>>Well, the good thing is that I can reproduce the error here, the bad > >>>>thing is that it slipped through testing on -current... > >>>>Oh, well, I'll look into it ASAP... > >>>Thank you Soren! > >>OK, had a few this afternoon, could you try this patch and let me know > >>if it helps, at least it makes the problem go away on my testbed.. > > > >Is this relative to HEAD or RELENG_6? I cannot / will not go to HEAD > >with this machine (my main production box.. :-) > > Doesn't matter, ATA is the same on both...
OK, I was not sure if they were 100% identical. The patch at first impression seems to have eliminated the problem. Interestingly enough ad10 remained ad10 with the patch applied? I'll put some load on to see what happens. -- Wilko Bulte [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
