Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:40:00 +
> Bruce Cran wrote:
>
>> One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown
>> event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an
>> emergency unload still gets done when running "acpiconf -s3".
>
> Something el
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:40:00 +
Bruce Cran wrote:
> One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown
> event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an
> emergency unload still gets done when running "acpiconf -s3".
Something else I noticed today: I've just g
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:37:00 -0600, Alexander Best
wrote:
1) switching to a differnt tty worked, but i couldn't log in (input was
simply
ignored)
I don't mean to derail this thread if this is completely unrelated, but
we've been having issues with FreeBSD 8.0 and 8.1 dying on our ESX
On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > Alexander Best wrote:
> > > On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > >> Alexander Best wrote:
> > >>> On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 +
> > Alexander Best w
On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote:
> >> Alexander Best wrote:
> >>> On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 +
> Alexander Best wrote:
>
> > so how about olivers patch? it wi
Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Alexander Best wrote:
>>> On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 +
Alexander Best wrote:
> so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's
> garanteed not
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Alexander Best wrote:
>> > On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 +
>> >> Alexander Best wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to a
On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 +
> >> Alexander Best wrote:
> >>
> >>> so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's
> >>> garanteed not to break any other CAM de
Alexander Best wrote:
> On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 +
>> Alexander Best wrote:
>>
>>> so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's
>>> garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the
>>> aac controller issue)
On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 +
> Alexander Best wrote:
>
> > so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's
> > garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the
> > aac controller issue). you could revert your pr
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 +
Alexander Best wrote:
> so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's
> garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the
> aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work
> and plug olivers patch in
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:04:39 +0200 (CEST)
Oliver Fromme wrote:
> I'm also against printing a warning for values less than 600.
> If I want to set the value to 300, I don't want to be slapped
> with a useless warning.
Having just checked Windows and seen that it lets you specify a timeout
down to
Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> Why not just be consistent with other interfaces and provide
>> suffixes for the values to parse out integral times (i.e. 1 [second],
>> 1m, 2h)? As long as the value is behavior is properly documented in
>> the manpage (and pot
Alexander Best wrote:
> but this will not solve the real issue: specifying 'atacontrol
> spindown 1s' WILL damage your hardware!
You're making assumptions. I can very well imagine scenarios
where 1s might make sense and will not damage the hardware,
for example when there is no file system mou
Alexander Best wrote:
> i just stumbled upon PR 144770, where a somebody seems to have mistaken the
> spindown value for minutes instead of seconds. so i really think we should
> have
> this warning in atacontrol!
>
> +1 from brucec, if i understood him correctly.
>
> another possibilit
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
>> > On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
>> >> On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
>> >> > Dag-
On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
> >> On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
> >> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > The problem with settin
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
>> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> >
>> > > The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
>> > > la
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> >
> > > The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
> > > laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and b
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Sunday 24 October 2010 18:47:57 Alexander Motin wrote:
>> I am not sure, but have feeling that tape drives (for example) may
>> also benefit from head parking before powering down.
>
> USB hard disks would benefit as well I think. Although, ideally it
> should happen aft
On Sunday 24 October 2010 18:47:57 Alexander Motin wrote:
> I am not sure, but have feeling that tape drives (for example) may
> also benefit from head parking before powering down.
USB hard disks would benefit as well I think. Although, ideally it
should happen after unmounting the last file syst
Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:47:57 +0300
> Alexander Motin wrote:
>
>> Comparing two ways implementing spindown, I've recalled that both of
>> them using xpt_polled_action() method, which depends on working
>> controller polling operation. So they could be almost equaly not good.
>>
Bruce Cran wrote:
> I've just committed the patch to move the functionality into ada(4).
> Should it be reverted?
It seems to me that ATA and SCSI devices are sufficiently
different (from the code's point of view) that it makes
sense to separate the functionality in the ada and da
drivers. In
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:47:57 +0300
Alexander Motin wrote:
> Comparing two ways implementing spindown, I've recalled that both of
> them using xpt_polled_action() method, which depends on working
> controller polling operation. So they could be almost equaly not good.
> But the method present in H
Alexander Best wrote:
> On Thu Oct 21 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> Alexander Best writes:
>>> no need to get upset. you asked where i found the information regarding the
>>> wear impact of spinning down disks and i gave you the answer.
>> I am upset by your claim that "doing spin downs upon r
On Thu Oct 21 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Alexander Best writes:
> > no need to get upset. you asked where i found the information regarding the
> > wear impact of spinning down disks and i gave you the answer.
>
> I am upset by your claim that "doing spin downs upon reboot might be
> even w
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:07:36 +0200
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> FreeBSD frequently accesses hard disks (log files, flushing dirty
> memory pages every 30s,...) and laptop drives tend to have aggressive
> power saving settings by default. That's why your load cycle is so
> high.
I'm not sure the APM v
On Friday 22 October 2010 00:32:54 Paul Wootton wrote:
> Actually, the green series does spin all the way down, well at least
> the drive I have does.
> Here is the output from one of my drives, that I do not think has
> long left to live.
>
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Model Family:
On Fri Oct 22 10, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Alexander Best wrote:
> > the current implementation (kern.cam.power_down) uses a singe "sleep"
> > operation, whereas the patch by oliver uses "flush" and "standby immediate".
>
> Sleep is just more aggressive. It puts device into deeper sleep state. I
>
Alexander Best wrote:
> the current implementation (kern.cam.power_down) uses a singe "sleep"
> operation, whereas the patch by oliver uses "flush" and "standby immediate".
Sleep is just more aggressive. It puts device into deeper sleep state. I
don't think it is important from wearing point of vi
On 10/21/10 15:20, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Bruce Cran writes:
The Ubuntu issue was what I was thinking of - I got that mixed up with
the aggressive power management of the WD EARS drives.
The entire Green series, actually, which includes models such as the
EADS, AARS etc., but there's more
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 05:20:54PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Bruce Cran writes:
> > The Ubuntu issue was what I was thinking of - I got that mixed up with
> > the aggressive power management of the WD EARS drives.
>
> The entire Green series, actually, which includes models such as the
Bruce Cran writes:
> The Ubuntu issue was what I was thinking of - I got that mixed up with
> the aggressive power management of the WD EARS drives.
The entire Green series, actually, which includes models such as the
EADS, AARS etc., but there's more to them than that - the central
feature is th
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:35:06 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Really? That would make the system close to unusable, and the disk's
> life expectancy would be reduced to a few months; a disk that performs
> two load / unload cycles per minute on average will need replacing
> after three to six
RW writes:
> Alexander Best wrote:
> > this seems to indicate that spinning down a disk has quite an impact.
> That's mostly likely a hang-over from older disk technologies when the
> heads touched the surface on spinning down.
They still do, although these days the "landing zone" has a specia
Alexander Best writes:
> no need to get upset. you asked where i found the information regarding the
> wear impact of spinning down disks and i gave you the answer.
I am upset by your claim that "doing spin downs upon reboot might be
even worse than not doing spindowns upon shutdown", because you
Bruce Cran writes:
> Do we think our users are silly enough to set a short timeout of just a
> few minutes? I'd think most would use a setting of 20-30 minutes at
> a minimum. I never did understand why there were so many warnings;
> after all, some laptops even come with a default APM scheme in
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:21:10 +
Alexander Best wrote:
> atacontrol(8) says that:
>
> "You should not set a spindown timeout on a disk with / or syslog
> logging on it as the disk will be worn out spinning down and up all
> the time."
>
> this seems to indicate that spinning down a disk
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:41:14 +
Alexander Best wrote:
> personally i still think something like the attached patch would be
> nice to have. there's a chance users might type the following:
>
> 'atacontrol spindown device 10'
>
> thinking the timeout value is measured in minutes.
I agree -
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>
> > The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
> > laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back
> > up several hundred times a day, which increa
On Thu Oct 21 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Alexander Best writes:
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > > No. Where did you get that idea? To repeat what I've said before -
> > > several times - in this thread, a modern disk drive can handle hundreds
> > > of thousands of controlled unloads b
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
> laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back
> up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O
> latency and wear.
Alexander Best writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > No. Where did you get that idea? To repeat what I've said before -
> > several times - in this thread, a modern disk drive can handle hundreds
> > of thousands of controlled unloads but only a few hundred emergency
> > unloads. Given the
On Thu Oct 21 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Alexander Best writes:
> > since there seems no way to distinguish between these two states in ATA(4)
> > it's
> > probably better to leave it as it is, since doing spin downs upon reboot
> > might
> > be even worse than not doing spindowns upon shu
Alexander Best writes:
> since there seems no way to distinguish between these two states in ATA(4)
> it's
> probably better to leave it as it is, since doing spin downs upon reboot might
> be even worse than not doing spindowns upon shutdown.
No. Where did you get that idea? To repeat what I'
On Thu Sep 16 10, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> > On Thursday 16 September 2010 16:10:22 Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> > > > I would just spin down the disk in case of a halt. An unwanted spin
> > > > down is harmless compared to an emergency shutdown an
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Oliver Fromme wrote:
I've updated the patch for ada(4). It includes a bug fix
(command1 vs. command2) and uses the howto flags passed to
the shutdown function. Thanks again for pointing these out.
Works perfectly on a system here. Thanks!
___
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:17:52 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Garrett Cooper writes:
> > Agreed. Spinning down at reboot isn't smart and seems like a good
> > way to kill a disk quicker.
>
> *not* spinning down at halt is far worse. Most modern disks are rated
> for hundreds of thousands of
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Thursday 16 September 2010 16:10:22 Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> > > I would just spin down the disk in case of a halt. An unwanted spin
> > > down is harmless compared to an emergency shutdown and usually the
> > > intention is to power off rath
On Thursday 16 September 2010 16:10:22 Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> I would just spin down the disk in case of a halt. An unwanted spin
>> down is harmless compared to an emergency shutdown and usually the
>> intention is to power off rather than reboot.
>
> Is it? When I inten
On 09/16/10 09:42, Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Alexander Best wrote:
>
>> On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>>> Warren Block wrote:
>>> > [...]
>>> > 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which
>>> > will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRE
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Alexander Best wrote:
On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Warren Block wrote:
> [...]
> 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which
> will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was
> kind enough to look at my event hand
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Thursday 16 September 2010 10:41:07 Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Also, there are cases where it is completely impossible to
> > decide automatically whether the disks should be spun down
> > or not. For example, if the admin issues a shutdown -h
> > (halt), there's no
On Thursday 16 September 2010 10:41:07 Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Alexander Best wrote:
>> On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>>> The patch below will work with the new CAM ATA driver
>>> (i.e. ada(4) disks). It adds a sysctl, so you can switch
>>> the spin-down off if you're going to just reboot:
Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Warren Block wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which
> > > will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was
> > > kind enough to look at my even
Garrett Cooper writes:
> Agreed. Spinning down at reboot isn't smart and seems like a good way
> to kill a disk quicker.
*not* spinning down at halt is far worse. Most modern disks are rated
for hundreds of thousands of load-unload cycles, but far fewer emergency
unloads (which is what happens w
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>> Warren Block wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which
>> > will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was
>> > kind e
On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Warren Block wrote:
> > [...]
> > 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which
> > will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was
> > kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that
Warren Block wrote:
> [...]
> 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which
> will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was
> kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that he is
> looking at implementing the head parkin
Just wanted to followup with a summary before all vestiges of what I
learned evaporate from my memory. My apologies for the lateness.
1. Existing FreeBSD ata-disk code does not explicitly park the hard
drive heads on shutdown. So the power loss causes an emergency park,
which sounds bad and
60 matches
Mail list logo
