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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).