From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: I Stratford <i.d.stratford@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>
Subject: Re: Promise SATA TX4 300 port timeout with sata_promise in 2.6.22, kernel panic in 2.6.23
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:06:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <473B9B8F.9030905@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6f048fc10711140033x43358a8cxf5e9df8d4328d135@mail.gmail.com>
I Stratford wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 4:01 AM, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>>> First, a workaround for a HW erratum affecting 2nd-generation
>>> chips like the SATA300 TX4 was included in kernel 2.6.24-rc2.
>> ...
>> Alright, if it's fixable, no problem. I just wanted to remind that
>> running the link at 3Gbps isn't worth if it continues to cause problems.
>
> I appreciate the replies and ensuing discussion. I will test
> 2.6.24-rc2 as soon as possible and let you know the results. At that
> time I'll also have more runtime on the 1.5Gbps forced 2.622 and will
> be able to follow-up. Would you (Tejun, Mikael) prefer that I mail
> linux-ide or you directly? I checked for a linux-ide FAQ and didn't
> find one.. :)
Please cc all involved including linux-ide.
> Mikael :
>>> Secondly, Stratford's system is seriously overloaded:
>>> ...
>>> - problems began when two Promise 300 TX4 cards and
>>> more disks were added
>>> On several occasions we've traced people's problems to
>>> overtaxed system components (cooling, PSU, PCI busses).
>
> Tejun:
>> Agreed, I've seen my share of those issues. Especially, SATA links seem
>> very dependent on power quality and very weird things happen when the
>> power isn't good enough. Easy way to debug this is connect half of the
>> drives to a separate PSU and see what happens.
>
> While I agree that the configuration is "seriously overloaded" (I
> believe I described it as "admittedly somewhat insane" ;D) I haven't
> experienced any port-resets or timeouts on my new TX4 300s, coming up
> on a week of runtime with the 1.5Gbps-only 2.6.22 patched kernel.
> Also, the problems did not generally extend to the two pre-existing
> TX4 150s on the same PCI bus, even when the TX4 300s were having
> problems. If hardware overheating/PCI overload/PSU problems were the
> cause, it seems like a very lucky coincidence that stepping the TX4
> 300s to 1.5Gbps mode also resolves it. :D
One thing I can tell you is power problem shows itself in highly diverse
ways. Failing 3Gbps while 1.5 works fine, some subset of disks /
controllers work fine while others don't. You name it.
> The system's 23 drives are spread across 3 good quality power
> supplies. As indicated in my initial mail, I have swapped the PSU on
> the new drive with a new one, specifically a 430 watt cooler master
> PSU which by my kill-a-watt gives me ~250 watts of headroom even
> during spin-up. While my building power is notoriously lousy, I find a
> building-power or PSU-power-quality explanation somewhat unlikely,
> especially in light of the consistent performance of the two TX4 150s
> and the night-and-day performance of 1.5Gbps patched 2.6.22 vice
> unpatched 2.6.22 on the two TX4 300s.
That said, using one or more PSUs and swapping them is the best way to
rule those problems out.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-15 1:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-12 10:25 Promise SATA TX4 300 port timeout with sata_promise in 2.6.22, kernel panic in 2.6.23 Mikael Pettersson
2007-11-12 12:01 ` Tejun Heo
2007-11-14 8:33 ` I Stratford
2007-11-14 9:38 ` Patric Karlsson
2007-11-15 1:06 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-11-10 12:43 I Stratford
2007-11-12 4:12 ` Tejun Heo
2007-11-12 8:45 ` Patric Karlsson
2007-11-12 8:58 ` Tejun Heo
2007-11-12 19:59 ` Peter Favrholdt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=473B9B8F.9030905@gmail.com \
--to=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=i.d.stratford@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikpe@it.uu.se \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.