Hello, Chris.
Chris Boot wrote:
On 12 Aug 2005, at 4:24, Tejun Heo wrote:
Chris Boot wrote:I unplugged both drives from my on-board SATA controller and left just one connected to the 3112A controller. Rebooted with a fresh, vanilla 2.6.13-rc6 and ran:
Hi all,
I just recently took the plunge and bought 4 250 GB Seagate drives and a 2 port Silicon Image 3112A controller card for the 2 drives my motherboard doesn't handle. No matter how hard I try, I can't get the hard drives to work: they are detected correctly and work reasonably well under _very_ light load, but anything like building a RAID array is a bit much and the whole controller seems to lock up.
I've tried adding the drive to the blacklist in the sata_sil.c driver and I still have the same trouble: as you can see the messages below relate to my patched kernel with the blacklist fix. I've seen that this was discussed just yesterday, but that seemed to give nothing: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/ linux/ kernel/0508.1/0310.html
Ready and willing to hack my kernel to pieces; this machine is no use until I get all the drives working! Needless to say the drives connected to the on-board VIA controller work fine, as do the drives currently on the SiI controller if I swap them around.
Any ideas?
TIA
Chris
[added linux-ide to cc list]
Can you please try w/ vanilla kernel (2.6.12 or 2.6.13-rc)? And w/ one drive only?
You can leave drives on on-board SATA controller. It wouldn't make any difference.
dd if=/dev/zero of=test.img bs=1M count=16384
After about 30 seconds I got the crash and the kernel started repeating every 30 seconds (with different sector numbers):
ata1: command 0x35 timeout, stat 0xd9 host_stat 0x1
ata1: status=0xd9 { Busy }
SCSI error : <0 0 0 0> return code = 0x80000002
sda: Current: sense key=0xb
ASC=0x47 ASCQ=0x0
end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 14937602
ATA: abnormal status 0xD9 on port E0802087
ATA: abnormal status 0xD9 on port E0802087
ATA: abnormal status 0xD9 on port E0802087
dmesg:
Linux version 2.6.13-rc6 (bootc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (gcc version 3.3.5-20050130 (Gentoo 3.3.5.20050130-r1, ssp-3.3.5.20050130-1, pie-8.7.7.1)) #1 Fri Aug 12 12:31:25 BST 2005
...
libata version 1.11 loaded.
sata_sil version 0.9
ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:00:0a.0[A] -> GSI 18 (level, low) -> IRQ 177
ata1: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xE0802080 ctl 0xE080208A bmdma 0xE0802000 irq 177
ata2: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xE08020C0 ctl 0xE08020CA bmdma 0xE0802008 irq 177
ata1: dev 0 cfg 49:2f00 82:346b 83:7d01 84:4023 85:3469 86:3c01 87:4023 88:207f
ata1: dev 0 ATA, max UDMA/133, 488397168 sectors: lba48
ata1: dev 0 configured for UDMA/100
scsi0 : sata_sil
ata2: no device found (phy stat 00000000)
scsi1 : sata_sil
Vendor: ATA Model: ST3250823AS Rev: 3.03
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05
sata_via version 1.1
ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:00:0f.0[B] -> Link [ALKA] -> GSI 20 (level, low) -> IRQ 169
PCI: Via IRQ fixup for 0000:00:0f.0, from 11 to 9
sata_via(0000:00:0f.0): routed to hard irq line 9
ata3: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xB400 ctl 0xB802 bmdma 0xC400 irq 169
ata4: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xBC00 ctl 0xC002 bmdma 0xC408 irq 169
ata3: no device found (phy stat 00000000)
scsi2 : sata_via
ata4: no device found (phy stat 00000000)
scsi3 : sata_via
SCSI device sda: 488397168 512-byte hdwr sectors (250059 MB)
SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back
SCSI device sda: 488397168 512-byte hdwr sectors (250059 MB)
SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back
sda: sda1 sda2 sda3
Attached scsi disk sda at scsi0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0
Attached scsi generic sg0 at scsi0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0, type 0
I forgot to mention previously but I even tried with "noapic nolapic acpi=off pci=routeirq" and got the same trouble.
This is weird as ST3250823AS (and all Seagate .8 drives) are known to work without any problem with sii 3112/3114. I currently don't own such a drive but someone confirmed me that ST3250823AS works w/ sii 3114 without any problem (including bonnie++ results and all). So, I don't think it's the good old mod15write problem.
I hope it's just a bad hardware, cable or something like that; otherwise, you're hitting a new bug. Can you verify if the drive works under windows?