From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: sata_sil24 stability and performance Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:02:31 +0900 Message-ID: <47CC9197.9050609@gmail.com> References: <20080219020916.GA29902@denix.org> <20080219043659.GA11936@jim.sh> <47BAF677.5000602@rtr.ca> <20080302061453.GA7291@denix.org> <005d01c87c4c$0d01f550$4d0fa8c0@M2007> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.204.227]:42671 "EHLO qb-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753488AbYCDACi (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 19:02:38 -0500 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id e11so237029qbe.15 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:02:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <005d01c87c4c$0d01f550$4d0fa8c0@M2007> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Gabor FUNK Cc: Denys Dmytriyenko , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jim Paris , Mark Lord Hello, Gabor. Gabor FUNK wrote: > I have/had a similar (hard resetting) problem (2+8 disks, kernel > 2.6.24), see thread: > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-ide@vger.kernel.org/msg15950.html > > I tried replacing the PSU and also run the system with two 650W PSU-s, > also failed. I also think that PSU shouldn't be the problem as I see they > eat much less in operation than at spinup. It's not that simple tho. Some PSUs which happily spin up all the drives simultaneously have problems maintaining stable operation afterwards. Anyways, if you used two separate PSUs, and didn't see any change in failure pattern (ie. drives connected to certain PSU fails or swapping to which PSU the board is connected alleviates the problem), it's probably safe to say it's not PSU problem. > Now I replaced the MB and it runs with a different Gigabyte MB with > the 8 disk in SW RAID6 connected to the 2*4 on board SATA > connectors (these now use 2+4*ata_piix and 2 ahci kernel drivers) > and the 2 system disk is on an add-on Silicon Image SiI 3512 card. > > Since the problem is not seen immediately I can't tell whether it is > better now. It is running cp 1 2, cp 2 3... to 2500 or so, with 1GB > files then md5sums them, so far the problem not exhibiting. The > 1st copy didn't finish in a day, so accidentally a second one got > started (cron) and yesterday an "md: data-check" also started, so > the system is quite busy now doing disk reads/writes... Hmmm... Is it still okay? -- tejun