SATA status report updated

SATA status report updated

[Jeff Garzik]

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
to the hardware status report as well:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!

	Jeff

Re: SATA status report updated

[Rob van Nieuwkerk]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:09:12 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> software status report:
> 
> 	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Is any progress made on SMART support ?
I've been reading "SMART support will be integrated very soon"
for a very long time now .. :-)

> Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!

Yup, thanks to you & them.  SATA has been working perfect in my system
since I started using it 10 months ago !

	greetings,
	Rob van Nieuwkerk

Re: SATA status report updated

[Jeff Garzik]

Rob van Nieuwkerk wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:09:12 -0400
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> 
>>Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
>>software status report:
>>
>>	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html
> 
> 
> Is any progress made on SMART support ?
> I've been reading "SMART support will be integrated very soon"
> for a very long time now .. :-)

True enough :/

It's been feature-complete for a while, but the reports from testers in 
the field have made me too nervous to push it into the upstream kernel.

I might push it upstream, but disable it by default, which would allow 
for a wider test audience.

	Jeff

Re: SATA status report updated

[Matthew Garrett]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> software status report:
> 
> 	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

I couldn't see any reference to system-wide power management (ie,
suspend/resume of machines with SATA interfaces) - is any work going on
in that area at the moment?

Thanks,
-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.linux-rutgers.kernel@srcf.ucam.org

Re: SATA status report updated

[Luben Tuikov]

On 08/12/05 01:09, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> software status report:
> 
> 	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html
> 
> Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
> to the hardware status report as well:
> 
> 	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html
> 
> Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!

Thank you Jeff!

*Incredibly* good work!

	Luben

Re: SATA status report updated

[Luben Tuikov]

On 08/12/05 01:09, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> software status report:
> 
> 	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html
> 
> Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
> to the hardware status report as well:
> 
> 	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html
> 
> Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!

Thank you Jeff!

*Incredibly* good work!

	Luben

Re: SATA status report updated

[Luben Tuikov]

On 08/12/05 01:09, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> software status report:
> 
> 	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Good write up.  I like the simplicity of error handling.

Thumbs up!

	Luben

Re: SATA status report updated

[David Greaves]

Jeff Garzik wrote:

>
> True enough :/
>
> It's been feature-complete for a while, but the reports from testers
> in the field have made me too nervous to push it into the upstream
> kernel.
>
> I might push it upstream, but disable it by default, which would allow
> for a wider test audience.

Could you specify what tests and reports would be useful and what risks
are involved?
Eg If I have 2 SATA drives then could (OK, of course it *could* - but is
it likely) I break sda whilst testing with sdb? I can live with crashes
and hangs and I can mitigate data loss, but I may think twice if it'll
toast the drive.

Nb: I often think that if people bemoaning the lack of testers put a bit
of effort into saying what tests would be useful then more people would
run them.
"Here run this and just say if it crashes" is one approach.
"Try these options, use smartd, turn on debugging like this and send
this part of the output if you have a problem. Previously reported
problems include: <blah, blah blah>. Oh, it's only ever going to affect
the drive you specify and the worst case scenario is a low-level format
using the vendor's download (which may or may not be available)" - makes
me more aware of what I'm getting into.

David

-- 

Re: SATA status report updated

[Mogens Valentin]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> software status report:
> 
>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

 >> Queueing support, NCQ:
 >> #3 will be supported by libata, for all hardware and devices that
 >> support NCQ.

I guess this means libata support for HW-based NCQ.
It also could mean software/driver implemented NCQ, which could work on 
chipsets not supporting HW-NCQ in unison with a disk having NCQ?

> Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
> to the hardware status report as well:
> 
>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

How well does libata work with the newest ULi chipsets?
If not well, is there a possible timeframe?


(not on kernel list; if anyone there comments on ULi, pls. cc private)

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin

Re: SATA status report updated

[Mogens Valentin]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> software status report:
> 
>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

 >> Queueing support, NCQ:
 >> #3 will be supported by libata, for all hardware and devices that
 >> support NCQ.

I guess this means libata support for HW-based NCQ.
It also could mean software/driver implemented NCQ, which could work on 
chipsets not supporting HW-NCQ in unison with a disk having NCQ?

> Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
> to the hardware status report as well:
> 
>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

How well does libata work with the newest ULi chipsets?
If not well, is there a possible timeframe?


(not on kernel list; if anyone there comments on ULi, pls. cc private)

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin

Re: SATA status report updated

[Jeff Garzik]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
>>software status report:
>>
>>	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html
> 
> 
> I couldn't see any reference to system-wide power management (ie,
> suspend/resume of machines with SATA interfaces) - is any work going on
> in that area at the moment?

Jens Axboe @ SuSE posted a patch that needs some work.  So, it's on the 
radar screen, but I haven't seen any new work recently.

	Jeff

Re: SATA status report updated

[Jeff Garzik]

Mogens Valentin wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>
>> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
>> software status report:
>>
>>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html
> 
> 
>  >> Queueing support, NCQ:
>  >> #3 will be supported by libata, for all hardware and devices that
>  >> support NCQ.
> 
> I guess this means libata support for HW-based NCQ.
> It also could mean software/driver implemented NCQ, which could work on 
> chipsets not supporting HW-NCQ in unison with a disk having NCQ?

NCQ by definition -requires- support in the controller chip.


>> Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to 
>> refer to the hardware status report as well:
>>
>>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html
> 
> 
> How well does libata work with the newest ULi chipsets?
> If not well, is there a possible timeframe?

No idea.  I don't see many bug reports, so I suppose its OK.

	Jeff

Re: SATA status report updated

[Erik Slagter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 791 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 17:30 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> >>software status report:
> >>
> >>	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html
> > 
> > 
> > I couldn't see any reference to system-wide power management (ie,
> > suspend/resume of machines with SATA interfaces) - is any work going on
> > in that area at the moment?
> 
> Jens Axboe @ SuSE posted a patch that needs some work.  So, it's on the 
> radar screen, but I haven't seen any new work recently.

Ah, the sata-suspend patch. Also very needed. Extensively used over here
on various kernels (2.6.11 and 2.6.12 versions), no problems, works like
a charm imho.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: SATA status report updated

[Simon Oosthoek]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
> software status report:
> 
>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html
> 
> Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
> to the hardware status report as well:
> 
>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html
> 
> Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!
> 

Good overview!

I'm wondering how the support for the SIS 182 controller is doing, I 
noticed they have a GPL driver on their website for kernel 2.6.10, which 
is not a drop in replacement for sata_sis.c in 2.6.12.5, I haven't tried 
compiling it as an add-on module outside the tree, though...

Adding the 0x182 identifier to the 180 driver does compile (duh!), but I 
haven't tried it on hardware.

As a temporary measure, there was a patch posted to this list [1] a 
while ago, would it be a good idea to include this while full support is 
being worked on?

Cheers

Simon

[1]
Patch signed-off-by: Rainer Koenig <Rainer.Koenig@fujitsu-siemens.com>

--- linux-2.6.12.4/drivers/scsi/sata_sis.c	2005-08-05 09:04:37.000000000 
+0200
+++ linux/drivers/scsi/sata_sis.c	2005-08-11 10:22:07.000000000 +0200
@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
  static struct pci_device_id sis_pci_tbl[] = {
  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, 0x180, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, sis_180 },
  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, 0x181, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, sis_180 },
+        { PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, 0x182, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, sis_180 },
  	{ }	/* terminate list */
  };

Re: SATA status report updated

[Mogens Valentin]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
> to the hardware status report as well:
> 
>     http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

Jeff, is it possible for you at this time to comment on support for the 
JMicron JMB360 sataII chip?  Possible timeframe?
It's starting to be used with the ULi M1695/M1567 chipset.

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin

Re: SATA status report updated

[Jeff Garzik]

Mogens Valentin wrote:
> Jeff, is it possible for you at this time to comment on support for the 
> JMicron JMB360 sataII chip?  Possible timeframe?


Never heard of it.

	Jeff

Re: SATA status report updated

[Mogens Valentin]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Mogens Valentin wrote:
> 
>> Jeff, is it possible for you at this time to comment on support for 
>> the JMicron JMB360 sataII chip?  Possible timeframe?
> 
> Never heard of it.

Neigher had I. It's being used on the ASrock 939-SATAII mobo, in 
conjunction with the ULi M1695 chipset. I wonder why they chose an 
unknown SATAII chip for this. The M1695 already has two SATA150 
interfaces, and the only test I've seen with SATAII on this mobo used a 
SATA150 disk on that JMB360 interface - with poorer results than on the 
regular ifc. Could be due to the chip, BIOS, (xp) driver...

The rest of the tests came out pretty good, and the board is well 
featured, so naturally I'm interested in possible libata support.

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin