From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: Software RAID1 deadlock in 2.6.25 kernels Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:24:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4872DDEF.8040109@tmr.com> References: <48650567.3000501@w1nr.net> <18533.20961.694041.556763@notabene.brown> <20080630092348.GJ17557@boogie.lpds.sztaki.hu> <4868C410.2060005@w1nr.net> <20080630115926.GA31564@ruf099.fkie.fgan.de> <4868E050.7090904@tmr.com> <4868E45F.30105@w1nr.net> <486A4E7B.50604@tmr.com> <486A6291.20207@w1nr.net> <48723F5A.4060301@tmr.com> <48725C4B.5030505@w1nr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <48725C4B.5030505@w1nr.net> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mike McCarthy Cc: Michael Bussmann , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Mike McCarthy wrote: > Bill Davidsen wrote: >> Mike McCarthy wrote: >>> Bill Davidsen wrote: >>>> >>>> Given heavy 2.6.25 use, my guess is still that the root cause of >>>> this is hardware, and that the change in disk code either triggers >>>> the hardware problem, or handles it differently. Are you by any >>>> chance running NCQ on your system? >>>> >>> No. This system and the drives pre-date NCQ. I think NCQ is only >>> implemented in SATA and these are IDE drives. Sometime over the >>> weekend, I am going to reload SUSE 11 and try to do some more >>> debugging. >>> >>> BTW: It's back to 10.3 (kernel 2.6.22) running happily with a VMware >>> server thrashing away at the disks. >> >> This has recycled back to the top of my todo list, I have a server in >> mothballs with IDE drives, I'll pull it out, upgrade to FC9 current >> (non-rawhide) and see if I have any problems. It's off due to lack of >> need, not really obsolete, so it's a fair test. O'll put a dew >> hundred GB of raid-1 and beat on it. >> > I was going to get back to you all today and let you know what I > found. On Thursday, I rebuilt the system with SUSE 11 but before I > did I went over all of the BIOS settings. The second IDE drive was > set to "NONE" instead of "AUTO". Well, the installation went without > the previous hitch of having to manually install grub on the first > boot after the install. It has also been running since then without > issue. > > Is it that simple? Could that be all that was wrong? What doesn't > make sense is how 10.3 (kernel 2.6.22) never had an issue. Perhaps > without the BIOS reporting the second drive, the later kernel chose > the wrong parameters setting it up and they didn't match what was set > up by the BIOS for the first drive? Oh well, I needed to upgrade that system, I'll push testing down the week a day or two. It could well have been that simple. -- Bill Davidsen "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark