* Fw: UDMA on 815e chipset
@ 2001-01-03 12:12 quintaq
2001-01-03 14:32 ` Mike Dresser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: quintaq @ 2001-01-03 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Greetings Gurus,
Have I found a tiny, perhaps irrelevant, bug ?
I have recently installed SuSE 7.0 with the supplied 2.2.16 kernel on my
homebuilt dual-boot machine, which has an 815e chipset (Asus CuSL2 board), plus
30GB IBM Deskstar 75GXP HDD (hda). As I understand it both of these support UDMA modes4 and 5 / ATA 66 and 100.
The bios will not allow UDMA mode 5 to be set unless the correct cable is
detected. At boot-time under Windows the bios reports that UDMA Mode 5
has been set.
I decided to tweak the HDD performance under linux. I began with ATA 33 by adding the following to my boot.local : /sbin/hdparm -c1 -m16 -d1 -X66 /dev/hda
This line causes no problems and hparm reports UDMA mode 2 set with cache reads at 139.13 MB/sec and disk reads at 12.87 MB/sec.
I then try increasing to ATA 66 by substituting -X68 for X66.
At linux boot-time I now see that XF68 has been set, but then I see the error
message : "ide0: speed warning UDMA /3/4/5 is not functional". As I understand it, this means that the kernel has tested for the correct cable, but sees a negative response.
Even though I see the error message, I think that UDMA 4 / ATA 66 must actually have been set, because hdparm now reports cache reads at 143.82 MB/sec and disk reads at 15.76 MB/Ssec. hdparm also reports that the HDD is in UDMA mode 4.
Much the same thing happens if I try for ATA 100 / UDMA 5 by substituting -X69. hdparm now reports that the drive is in UDMA mode 5, but I do not see any improvement in transfer speeds, from which I assume that my kernel cannot go higher than ATA 66.
I assume (unwisely ?), from all this that for some reason the kernel's
check for the correct UDMA cabling on this chipset / motherboard is
failing, but that it is actually succeding in setting UDMA mode 5 and is happily running at ATA 66. Hence my "possibly irrelevant" bug report.
I have carried out all of the tests I mention above with a substitute cable, but the results are the same. I have not (yet) suffered any loss of data or other problems by ignoring the speed warning.
I am not subscribed to this list (perhaps I have revealed enough ignorance
above to explain why not), but I do not know where else I should report
the "problem", or where else I might get some feedback. If anyone can be
bothered to respond, then I would be very grateful if you could CC the reply
to me.
Thanks
Geoff
"Scattered we were when the long night was breaking:
But in bright morning converse again"
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Fw: UDMA on 815e chipset
2001-01-03 12:12 Fw: UDMA on 815e chipset quintaq
@ 2001-01-03 14:32 ` Mike Dresser
2001-01-03 16:28 ` quintaq
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mike Dresser @ 2001-01-03 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: quintaq, linux-kernel
> Even though I see the error message, I think that UDMA 4 / ATA 66 must actually have been set, because hdparm now reports cache reads at 143.82 MB/sec and disk reads at 15.76 MB/Ssec. hdparm also reports that the HDD is in UDMA mode 4.
This seems low, I have a pair of IBM DJNA-352030 20 gig's in a machine at home, that cache reads at 86.49(celeron 300@450, probably a slower machine than yours, would account for the lower numbers), disk reads score at 14.78, in Ultra/33 mode.(my mb
doesn't support ultra/66).
It's been so long since i bought the hard drives, that i can't remember if they're 5400 rpm or 7200. Either way, it's doing better than that controller is running your 7200 rpm 30'er.
> Much the same thing happens if I try for ATA 100 / UDMA 5 by substituting -X69. hdparm now reports that the drive is in UDMA mode 5, but I do not see any improvement in transfer speeds, from which I assume that my kernel cannot go higher than ATA 66.
Don't forget that no IDE drive out there, at this time, can saturate even Ultra/66. Unless you've got the newest and greatest, even Ultra/33 is wide enough for a single drive, unless you take into account the fact the cache can dump that whole
512k/2048k/whathaveyou at double the speed.
Granted, once you get two drives on the channel, Ultra/66 and 100 start making a difference, if they can share the channel efficiently.
Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Fw: UDMA on 815e chipset
2001-01-03 14:32 ` Mike Dresser
@ 2001-01-03 16:28 ` quintaq
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: quintaq @ 2001-01-03 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Mike / Mark,
Thank-you very much for your replies.
With regard to Mike, (a) I am using a PIII 800, so I really should be seeing better results than your Celeron. It seems, therefore, that my setup may be defective in more fundamental ways than I had imagined. (b) I do appreciate that I may not see any real benefit from Ultra/66 at this stage - I was just keen to experiment and see that the hardware was working.
In reply to Mark : (a) my HDD was certainly sold as UDMA 5 capable, and hdparm reports that it is. (b) I do not think you meant to suggest that I would solve the problem by deleting the -c and -m switches, but I deleted them anyway and the problem remains. (c) I wish I knew why the hell SuSE would include an obsolete kernel in their relatively new, flagship, v7 "Professional". So far as I can see, kernel 2.4 is not even an option on their ftp site. I use this machine for my business and cannot afford a major crash precipitated by a piece of inept kernel-tinkering on my part.
I do have a spare machine (bx board though),and I suppose that the way ahead is to play around installing the current kernel on that until I have the confidence to put it in this box.
One final thought. When I installed the OS I was offered the option to "use DMA", which I accepted. I see this set at an early stage in the boot-process (long before my boot.local executes). Is there any way this could be obstructing the subsequent instruction to use UDMA ?
Thanks again,
Geoff
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-01-03 16:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-01-03 12:12 Fw: UDMA on 815e chipset quintaq
2001-01-03 14:32 ` Mike Dresser
2001-01-03 16:28 ` quintaq
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.