Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Sarah Sharp]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:26:00AM +0300, Adrian Sandu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Sarah Sharp
> <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Ok, so 3.4.11 doesn't work, and the log file was from 3.5.
> 
> If you want I can provide a 3.4 log...

Hmm, does a 3.3 stable kernel work for you?  I have a hypothesis.

Alan, I'm wondering if the xHCI ring expansion is causing issues with
USB hard drives under xHCI.  Testing with a Buffalo USB 3.0 hard drive
with an NEC uPD720200 xHCI host, I see that the usb-storage and SCSI
initialization produces I/O errors on random sectors in 3.4.0, 3.4.6,
and 3.5.0.  I can't get those errors to be reproduced in 3.3.1.

The xHCI ring expansion was added in 3.4, and we changed the xHCI's
sg_tablesize:

int xhci_gen_setup(struct usb_hcd *hcd, xhci_get_quirks_t get_quirks)
{
...
        /* Accept arbitrarily long scatter-gather lists */
        hcd->self.sg_tablesize = ~0;

The usb-storage driver sets the tablesize thus:

static unsigned int usb_stor_sg_tablesize(struct usb_interface *intf)
{
        struct usb_device *usb_dev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);

        if (usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize) {
                return usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize;
        }
        return SG_ALL;
}

I notice that SG_ALL is set to SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS, which is only 128.
Should we be passing an arbitrarily large number to the SCSI core?
There's some wording in include/scsi/scsi.h about also limiting the
number of chained sgs to 2048.  I'm wondering if we're hitting some bugs
in the SCSI layer because we're setting the sg_tablesize so high.

Alternately, we could be hitting bugs in the USB 3.0 firmware when we
attempt to issue a read or write that's too big.  The read on Adrian's
hard drive failed on a bigger read request (122880 bytes).  It would be
interesting to see if it works fine if the xHCI sg_tablesize is limited.
I'm going to try that with my own drive on 3.5.4 and see if it helps.

Sarah Sharp

Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Andiry Xu]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Sarah Sharp
<sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:26:00AM +0300, Adrian Sandu wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Sarah Sharp
>> <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > Ok, so 3.4.11 doesn't work, and the log file was from 3.5.
>>
>> If you want I can provide a 3.4 log...
>
> Hmm, does a 3.3 stable kernel work for you?  I have a hypothesis.
>
> Alan, I'm wondering if the xHCI ring expansion is causing issues with
> USB hard drives under xHCI.  Testing with a Buffalo USB 3.0 hard drive
> with an NEC uPD720200 xHCI host, I see that the usb-storage and SCSI
> initialization produces I/O errors on random sectors in 3.4.0, 3.4.6,
> and 3.5.0.  I can't get those errors to be reproduced in 3.3.1.

Do you see the ring get expanded(more than 2 segments) when the errors occur?

>
> The xHCI ring expansion was added in 3.4, and we changed the xHCI's
> sg_tablesize:
>
> int xhci_gen_setup(struct usb_hcd *hcd, xhci_get_quirks_t get_quirks)
> {
> ...
>         /* Accept arbitrarily long scatter-gather lists */
>         hcd->self.sg_tablesize = ~0;

Actually this line is copied from ehci-hcd.

Thanks,
Andiry

>
> The usb-storage driver sets the tablesize thus:
>
> static unsigned int usb_stor_sg_tablesize(struct usb_interface *intf)
> {
>         struct usb_device *usb_dev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);
>
>         if (usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize) {
>                 return usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize;
>         }
>         return SG_ALL;
> }
>
> I notice that SG_ALL is set to SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS, which is only 128.
> Should we be passing an arbitrarily large number to the SCSI core?
> There's some wording in include/scsi/scsi.h about also limiting the
> number of chained sgs to 2048.  I'm wondering if we're hitting some bugs
> in the SCSI layer because we're setting the sg_tablesize so high.
>
> Alternately, we could be hitting bugs in the USB 3.0 firmware when we
> attempt to issue a read or write that's too big.  The read on Adrian's
> hard drive failed on a bigger read request (122880 bytes).  It would be
> interesting to see if it works fine if the xHCI sg_tablesize is limited.
> I'm going to try that with my own drive on 3.5.4 and see if it helps.
>
> Sarah Sharp
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Alan Stern]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Sarah Sharp wrote:

> Alan, I'm wondering if the xHCI ring expansion is causing issues with
> USB hard drives under xHCI.  Testing with a Buffalo USB 3.0 hard drive
> with an NEC uPD720200 xHCI host, I see that the usb-storage and SCSI
> initialization produces I/O errors on random sectors in 3.4.0, 3.4.6,
> and 3.5.0.  I can't get those errors to be reproduced in 3.3.1.
> 
> The xHCI ring expansion was added in 3.4, and we changed the xHCI's
> sg_tablesize:
> 
> int xhci_gen_setup(struct usb_hcd *hcd, xhci_get_quirks_t get_quirks)
> {
> ...
>         /* Accept arbitrarily long scatter-gather lists */
>         hcd->self.sg_tablesize = ~0;
> 
> The usb-storage driver sets the tablesize thus:
> 
> static unsigned int usb_stor_sg_tablesize(struct usb_interface *intf)
> {
>         struct usb_device *usb_dev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);
> 
>         if (usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize) {
>                 return usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize;
>         }
>         return SG_ALL;
> }
> 
> I notice that SG_ALL is set to SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS, which is only 128.
> Should we be passing an arbitrarily large number to the SCSI core?

Yes, there's no reason not to.  The block layer will make sure that
each individual request has a sufficiently small number of segments.

> There's some wording in include/scsi/scsi.h about also limiting the
> number of chained sgs to 2048.  I'm wondering if we're hitting some bugs
> in the SCSI layer because we're setting the sg_tablesize so high.

I doubt it.  Anyway, this stuff is handled by the block layer now, not
the SCSI layer.  If you look through drivers/scsi, you'll see that 
SG_ALL is used only in various SCSI interface drivers, not in the core.

> Alternately, we could be hitting bugs in the USB 3.0 firmware when we
> attempt to issue a read or write that's too big.  The read on Adrian's
> hard drive failed on a bigger read request (122880 bytes).  It would be
> interesting to see if it works fine if the xHCI sg_tablesize is limited.
> I'm going to try that with my own drive on 3.5.4 and see if it helps.

There were examples in the earlier usbmon traces where 122880-byte 
reads succeeded, for whatever that's worth...

I doubt very much that you are anywhere close to hitting that limit.  
If a 120-KB transfer has more than 128 SG segments then on average each
segment would be under 1024 bytes, a lot smaller than a page, which
seems unlikely.  I don't think I've ever seen a transfer needing more
than about 8 segments.

Alan Stern

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Sarah Sharp wrote:
>
>> Alan, I'm wondering if the xHCI ring expansion is causing issues with
>> USB hard drives under xHCI.  Testing with a Buffalo USB 3.0 hard drive
>> with an NEC uPD720200 xHCI host, I see that the usb-storage and SCSI
>> initialization produces I/O errors on random sectors in 3.4.0, 3.4.6,
>> and 3.5.0.  I can't get those errors to be reproduced in 3.3.1.
>>
>> The xHCI ring expansion was added in 3.4, and we changed the xHCI's
>> sg_tablesize:
>>
>> int xhci_gen_setup(struct usb_hcd *hcd, xhci_get_quirks_t get_quirks)
>> {
>> ...
>>         /* Accept arbitrarily long scatter-gather lists */
>>         hcd->self.sg_tablesize = ~0;
>>
>> The usb-storage driver sets the tablesize thus:
>>
>> static unsigned int usb_stor_sg_tablesize(struct usb_interface *intf)
>> {
>>         struct usb_device *usb_dev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);
>>
>>         if (usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize) {
>>                 return usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize;
>>         }
>>         return SG_ALL;
>> }
>>
>> I notice that SG_ALL is set to SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS, which is only 128.
>> Should we be passing an arbitrarily large number to the SCSI core?
>
> Yes, there's no reason not to.  The block layer will make sure that
> each individual request has a sufficiently small number of segments.
>
>> There's some wording in include/scsi/scsi.h about also limiting the
>> number of chained sgs to 2048.  I'm wondering if we're hitting some bugs
>> in the SCSI layer because we're setting the sg_tablesize so high.
>
> I doubt it.  Anyway, this stuff is handled by the block layer now, not
> the SCSI layer.  If you look through drivers/scsi, you'll see that
> SG_ALL is used only in various SCSI interface drivers, not in the core.
>
>> Alternately, we could be hitting bugs in the USB 3.0 firmware when we
>> attempt to issue a read or write that's too big.  The read on Adrian's
>> hard drive failed on a bigger read request (122880 bytes).  It would be
>> interesting to see if it works fine if the xHCI sg_tablesize is limited.
>> I'm going to try that with my own drive on 3.5.4 and see if it helps.
>
> There were examples in the earlier usbmon traces where 122880-byte
> reads succeeded, for whatever that's worth...
>
> I doubt very much that you are anywhere close to hitting that limit.
> If a 120-KB transfer has more than 128 SG segments then on average each
> segment would be under 1024 bytes, a lot smaller than a page, which
> seems unlikely.  I don't think I've ever seen a transfer needing more
> than about 8 segments.
>
> Alan Stern
>
Ok, back to vanilla 3.4.11, disabled CONFIG_USB_XHCI_HCD_DEBUGGING ..

I still see

2012-09-26T19:52:16.661604+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.416759] usb
3-2.4: reset SuperSpeed USB device number 11 using xhci_hcd
2012-09-26T19:52:16.674632+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.429351]
xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
ffff88011d3c6980
2012-09-26T19:52:16.674665+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.429363]
xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
ffff88011d3c69c0
T:  Bus=03 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#=  8 Spd=5000 MxCh= 4
D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=03 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
P:  Vendor=2109 ProdID=0810 Rev= 3.74
S:  Manufacturer=VIA Labs, Inc.
S:  Product=4-Port USB 3.0 Hub
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=13(Int.) MxPS=   2 Ivl=4096ms

T:  Bus=02 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#=  4 Spd=480  MxCh= 4
D:  Ver= 2.00 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=01 MxPS=64 #Cfgs=  1
P:  Vendor=2109 ProdID=3431 Rev= 2.74
S:  Product=USB2.0 Hub
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=e0 MxPwr=100mA
I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS=   1 Ivl=256ms

T:  Bus=03 Lev=02 Prnt=08 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#=  9 Spd=5000 MxCh= 0
D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
P:  Vendor=1058 ProdID=1140 Rev=10.03
S:  Manufacturer=Western Digital
S:  Product=My Book 1140
S:  SerialNumber=5743415A4144303235323133
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=06 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage
E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
E:  Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms

T:  Bus=03 Lev=02 Prnt=08 Port=03 Cnt=04 Dev#= 11 Spd=5000 MxCh= 0
D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
P:  Vendor=1058 ProdID=1140 Rev=10.03
S:  Manufacturer=Western Digital
S:  Product=My Book 1140
S:  SerialNumber=574D415A4135343330323937
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=06 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage
E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
E:  Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms

So I need to cat 3u .. right ? Available at
http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/1348678668_3u
After the copy .. I see

2012-09-26T19:52:51.477641+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.232213] hub
3-2:1.0: Cannot enable port 4.  Maybe the USB cable is bad?
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003074+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757636] sd
16:0:0:0: Device offlined - not ready after error recovery
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003081+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757652] sd
16:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled error code
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003088+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757656] sd
16:0:0:0: [sdd]  Result: hostbyte=DID_ABORT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003095+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757663] sd
16:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 17 ab ab e0 00 00 f0 00
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003101+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757680]
end_request: I/O error, dev sdd, sector 397126624
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003107+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757721] sd
16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003112+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757730] sd
16:0:0:0: [sdd] killing request
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003118+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757750] sd
16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003125+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757769] sd
16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003131+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757788] sd
16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003138+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757814] sd
16:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled error code
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003145+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757821] sd
16:0:0:0: [sdd]  Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003152+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757829] sd
16:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 17 ab ac d0 00 00 10 00
2012-09-26T19:52:52.003159+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757849]
end_request: I/O error, dev sdd, sector 397126864
2012-09-26T19:52:52.018669+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.773433] usb
3-2.4: USB disconnect, device number 11

While trying to copy ( using mc ) from /dev/sdb1 ( mounted /media/sdd1
) to /dev/sdd1 ( mounted /media/sde1 ) .. Sorry for the confusion ..
because I don't know which ones will get in what order I use uuids in
fstab ..

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

2012-09-26T20:13:09.700606+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2466.455403] usb
3-1.1: reset SuperSpeed USB device number 14 using xhci_hcd
2012-09-26T20:13:09.713629+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2466.468373]
xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
ffff88011aea1300
2012-09-26T20:13:09.713667+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2466.468384]
xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
ffff88011aea1340
2012-09-26T20:13:44.480669+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.235365] hub
3-1:1.0: Cannot enable port 1.  Maybe the USB cable is bad?
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005111+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759279] sd
18:0:0:0: Device offlined - not ready after error recovery
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005118+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759300] sd
18:0:0:0: [sdb] Unhandled error code
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005125+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759305] sd
18:0:0:0: [sdb]  Result: hostbyte=DID_ABORT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005133+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759312] sd
18:0:0:0: [sdb] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 00 03 2c 00 00 00 f0 00
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005139+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759328]
end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 207872
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005146+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759334]
quiet_error: 23 callbacks suppressed
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005151+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759339]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25984
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005157+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759351]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25985
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005163+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759357]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25986
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005169+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759363]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25987
The result of a simple d3xt3r01 ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
 Timing cached reads:   1494 MB in  2.00 seconds = 747.20 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: read(2097152) returned 1572864 bytes
BLKFLSBUF failed: No such device

It didn't fail the first time though .. I just executed the same
command twice ..
Assuming that 3u is the good thing to cat ..
http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/1348679651_3u ..
( given the output in /sys/kernel/debug/usb/devices )

Hope this helps more to identify the issue ..

2012-09-26T20:13:45.005175+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759369]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25988
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005182+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759375]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25989
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005188+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759382]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25990
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005194+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759393] sd
18:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005200+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759407] sd
18:0:0:0: [sdb] killing request
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005207+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759415]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25991
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005213+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759426]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25992
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005220+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759432]
Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25993
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005227+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759440] sd
18:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005233+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759494] sd
18:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005240+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759505] sd
18:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005246+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759624] sd
18:0:0:0: [sdb] Unhandled error code
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005252+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759630] sd
18:0:0:0: [sdb]  Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005259+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759637] sd
18:0:0:0: [sdb] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 00 03 2c f0 00 00 10 00
2012-09-26T20:13:45.005267+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759654]
end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 208112
2012-09-26T20:13:45.020696+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.775198] usb
3-1.1: USB disconnect, device number 14


On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Adrian Sandu <dexter@d3xt3r01.tk> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Sarah Sharp wrote:
>>
>>> Alan, I'm wondering if the xHCI ring expansion is causing issues with
>>> USB hard drives under xHCI.  Testing with a Buffalo USB 3.0 hard drive
>>> with an NEC uPD720200 xHCI host, I see that the usb-storage and SCSI
>>> initialization produces I/O errors on random sectors in 3.4.0, 3.4.6,
>>> and 3.5.0.  I can't get those errors to be reproduced in 3.3.1.
>>>
>>> The xHCI ring expansion was added in 3.4, and we changed the xHCI's
>>> sg_tablesize:
>>>
>>> int xhci_gen_setup(struct usb_hcd *hcd, xhci_get_quirks_t get_quirks)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>>         /* Accept arbitrarily long scatter-gather lists */
>>>         hcd->self.sg_tablesize = ~0;
>>>
>>> The usb-storage driver sets the tablesize thus:
>>>
>>> static unsigned int usb_stor_sg_tablesize(struct usb_interface *intf)
>>> {
>>>         struct usb_device *usb_dev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);
>>>
>>>         if (usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize) {
>>>                 return usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize;
>>>         }
>>>         return SG_ALL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> I notice that SG_ALL is set to SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS, which is only 128.
>>> Should we be passing an arbitrarily large number to the SCSI core?
>>
>> Yes, there's no reason not to.  The block layer will make sure that
>> each individual request has a sufficiently small number of segments.
>>
>>> There's some wording in include/scsi/scsi.h about also limiting the
>>> number of chained sgs to 2048.  I'm wondering if we're hitting some bugs
>>> in the SCSI layer because we're setting the sg_tablesize so high.
>>
>> I doubt it.  Anyway, this stuff is handled by the block layer now, not
>> the SCSI layer.  If you look through drivers/scsi, you'll see that
>> SG_ALL is used only in various SCSI interface drivers, not in the core.
>>
>>> Alternately, we could be hitting bugs in the USB 3.0 firmware when we
>>> attempt to issue a read or write that's too big.  The read on Adrian's
>>> hard drive failed on a bigger read request (122880 bytes).  It would be
>>> interesting to see if it works fine if the xHCI sg_tablesize is limited.
>>> I'm going to try that with my own drive on 3.5.4 and see if it helps.
>>
>> There were examples in the earlier usbmon traces where 122880-byte
>> reads succeeded, for whatever that's worth...
>>
>> I doubt very much that you are anywhere close to hitting that limit.
>> If a 120-KB transfer has more than 128 SG segments then on average each
>> segment would be under 1024 bytes, a lot smaller than a page, which
>> seems unlikely.  I don't think I've ever seen a transfer needing more
>> than about 8 segments.
>>
>> Alan Stern
>>
> Ok, back to vanilla 3.4.11, disabled CONFIG_USB_XHCI_HCD_DEBUGGING ..
>
> I still see
>
> 2012-09-26T19:52:16.661604+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.416759] usb
> 3-2.4: reset SuperSpeed USB device number 11 using xhci_hcd
> 2012-09-26T19:52:16.674632+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.429351]
> xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
> ffff88011d3c6980
> 2012-09-26T19:52:16.674665+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.429363]
> xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
> ffff88011d3c69c0
> T:  Bus=03 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#=  8 Spd=5000 MxCh= 4
> D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=03 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
> P:  Vendor=2109 ProdID=0810 Rev= 3.74
> S:  Manufacturer=VIA Labs, Inc.
> S:  Product=4-Port USB 3.0 Hub
> C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
> I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
> E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=13(Int.) MxPS=   2 Ivl=4096ms
>
> T:  Bus=02 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#=  4 Spd=480  MxCh= 4
> D:  Ver= 2.00 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=01 MxPS=64 #Cfgs=  1
> P:  Vendor=2109 ProdID=3431 Rev= 2.74
> S:  Product=USB2.0 Hub
> C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=e0 MxPwr=100mA
> I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
> E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS=   1 Ivl=256ms
>
> T:  Bus=03 Lev=02 Prnt=08 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#=  9 Spd=5000 MxCh= 0
> D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
> P:  Vendor=1058 ProdID=1140 Rev=10.03
> S:  Manufacturer=Western Digital
> S:  Product=My Book 1140
> S:  SerialNumber=5743415A4144303235323133
> C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
> I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=06 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage
> E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
> E:  Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
>
> T:  Bus=03 Lev=02 Prnt=08 Port=03 Cnt=04 Dev#= 11 Spd=5000 MxCh= 0
> D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
> P:  Vendor=1058 ProdID=1140 Rev=10.03
> S:  Manufacturer=Western Digital
> S:  Product=My Book 1140
> S:  SerialNumber=574D415A4135343330323937
> C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
> I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=06 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage
> E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
> E:  Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
>
> So I need to cat 3u .. right ? Available at
> http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/1348678668_3u
> After the copy .. I see
>
> 2012-09-26T19:52:51.477641+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.232213] hub
> 3-2:1.0: Cannot enable port 4.  Maybe the USB cable is bad?
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003074+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757636] sd
> 16:0:0:0: Device offlined - not ready after error recovery
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003081+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757652] sd
> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled error code
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003088+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757656] sd
> 16:0:0:0: [sdd]  Result: hostbyte=DID_ABORT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003095+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757663] sd
> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 17 ab ab e0 00 00 f0 00
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003101+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757680]
> end_request: I/O error, dev sdd, sector 397126624
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003107+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757721] sd
> 16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003112+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757730] sd
> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] killing request
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003118+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757750] sd
> 16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003125+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757769] sd
> 16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003131+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757788] sd
> 16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003138+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757814] sd
> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled error code
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003145+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757821] sd
> 16:0:0:0: [sdd]  Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003152+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757829] sd
> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 17 ab ac d0 00 00 10 00
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003159+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757849]
> end_request: I/O error, dev sdd, sector 397126864
> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.018669+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.773433] usb
> 3-2.4: USB disconnect, device number 11
>
> While trying to copy ( using mc ) from /dev/sdb1 ( mounted /media/sdd1
> ) to /dev/sdd1 ( mounted /media/sde1 ) .. Sorry for the confusion ..
> because I don't know which ones will get in what order I use uuids in
> fstab ..

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Adrian Sandu <dexter@d3xt3r01.tk> wrote:
> 2012-09-26T20:13:09.700606+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2466.455403] usb
> 3-1.1: reset SuperSpeed USB device number 14 using xhci_hcd
> 2012-09-26T20:13:09.713629+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2466.468373]
> xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
> ffff88011aea1300
> 2012-09-26T20:13:09.713667+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2466.468384]
> xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
> ffff88011aea1340
> 2012-09-26T20:13:44.480669+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.235365] hub
> 3-1:1.0: Cannot enable port 1.  Maybe the USB cable is bad?
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005111+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759279] sd
> 18:0:0:0: Device offlined - not ready after error recovery
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005118+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759300] sd
> 18:0:0:0: [sdb] Unhandled error code
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005125+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759305] sd
> 18:0:0:0: [sdb]  Result: hostbyte=DID_ABORT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005133+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759312] sd
> 18:0:0:0: [sdb] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 00 03 2c 00 00 00 f0 00
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005139+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759328]
> end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 207872
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005146+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759334]
> quiet_error: 23 callbacks suppressed
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005151+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759339]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25984
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005157+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759351]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25985
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005163+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759357]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25986
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005169+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759363]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25987
> The result of a simple d3xt3r01 ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
>
> /dev/sdb:
>  Timing cached reads:   1494 MB in  2.00 seconds = 747.20 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: read(2097152) returned 1572864 bytes
> BLKFLSBUF failed: No such device
>
> It didn't fail the first time though .. I just executed the same
> command twice ..
> Assuming that 3u is the good thing to cat ..
> http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/1348679651_3u ..
> ( given the output in /sys/kernel/debug/usb/devices )
>
> Hope this helps more to identify the issue ..

Anything else I can help with ? :| I'm stuck .. dunno what to test
more or what else helpfull info I could give ya' guys ..

> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005175+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759369]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25988
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005182+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759375]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25989
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005188+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759382]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25990
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005194+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759393] sd
> 18:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005200+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759407] sd
> 18:0:0:0: [sdb] killing request
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005207+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759415]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25991
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005213+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759426]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25992
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005220+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759432]
> Buffer I/O error on device sdb, logical block 25993
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005227+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759440] sd
> 18:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005233+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759494] sd
> 18:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005240+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759505] sd
> 18:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005246+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759624] sd
> 18:0:0:0: [sdb] Unhandled error code
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005252+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759630] sd
> 18:0:0:0: [sdb]  Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005259+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759637] sd
> 18:0:0:0: [sdb] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 00 03 2c f0 00 00 10 00
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.005267+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.759654]
> end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 208112
> 2012-09-26T20:13:45.020696+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 2501.775198] usb
> 3-1.1: USB disconnect, device number 14
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Adrian Sandu <dexter@d3xt3r01.tk> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Sarah Sharp wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan, I'm wondering if the xHCI ring expansion is causing issues with
>>>> USB hard drives under xHCI.  Testing with a Buffalo USB 3.0 hard drive
>>>> with an NEC uPD720200 xHCI host, I see that the usb-storage and SCSI
>>>> initialization produces I/O errors on random sectors in 3.4.0, 3.4.6,
>>>> and 3.5.0.  I can't get those errors to be reproduced in 3.3.1.
>>>>
>>>> The xHCI ring expansion was added in 3.4, and we changed the xHCI's
>>>> sg_tablesize:
>>>>
>>>> int xhci_gen_setup(struct usb_hcd *hcd, xhci_get_quirks_t get_quirks)
>>>> {
>>>> ...
>>>>         /* Accept arbitrarily long scatter-gather lists */
>>>>         hcd->self.sg_tablesize = ~0;
>>>>
>>>> The usb-storage driver sets the tablesize thus:
>>>>
>>>> static unsigned int usb_stor_sg_tablesize(struct usb_interface *intf)
>>>> {
>>>>         struct usb_device *usb_dev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);
>>>>
>>>>         if (usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize) {
>>>>                 return usb_dev->bus->sg_tablesize;
>>>>         }
>>>>         return SG_ALL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I notice that SG_ALL is set to SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS, which is only 128.
>>>> Should we be passing an arbitrarily large number to the SCSI core?
>>>
>>> Yes, there's no reason not to.  The block layer will make sure that
>>> each individual request has a sufficiently small number of segments.
>>>
>>>> There's some wording in include/scsi/scsi.h about also limiting the
>>>> number of chained sgs to 2048.  I'm wondering if we're hitting some bugs
>>>> in the SCSI layer because we're setting the sg_tablesize so high.
>>>
>>> I doubt it.  Anyway, this stuff is handled by the block layer now, not
>>> the SCSI layer.  If you look through drivers/scsi, you'll see that
>>> SG_ALL is used only in various SCSI interface drivers, not in the core.
>>>
>>>> Alternately, we could be hitting bugs in the USB 3.0 firmware when we
>>>> attempt to issue a read or write that's too big.  The read on Adrian's
>>>> hard drive failed on a bigger read request (122880 bytes).  It would be
>>>> interesting to see if it works fine if the xHCI sg_tablesize is limited.
>>>> I'm going to try that with my own drive on 3.5.4 and see if it helps.
>>>
>>> There were examples in the earlier usbmon traces where 122880-byte
>>> reads succeeded, for whatever that's worth...
>>>
>>> I doubt very much that you are anywhere close to hitting that limit.
>>> If a 120-KB transfer has more than 128 SG segments then on average each
>>> segment would be under 1024 bytes, a lot smaller than a page, which
>>> seems unlikely.  I don't think I've ever seen a transfer needing more
>>> than about 8 segments.
>>>
>>> Alan Stern
>>>
>> Ok, back to vanilla 3.4.11, disabled CONFIG_USB_XHCI_HCD_DEBUGGING ..
>>
>> I still see
>>
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:16.661604+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.416759] usb
>> 3-2.4: reset SuperSpeed USB device number 11 using xhci_hcd
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:16.674632+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.429351]
>> xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
>> ffff88011d3c6980
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:16.674665+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1213.429363]
>> xhci_hcd 0000:04:00.0: xHCI xhci_drop_endpoint called with disabled ep
>> ffff88011d3c69c0
>> T:  Bus=03 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#=  8 Spd=5000 MxCh= 4
>> D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=03 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
>> P:  Vendor=2109 ProdID=0810 Rev= 3.74
>> S:  Manufacturer=VIA Labs, Inc.
>> S:  Product=4-Port USB 3.0 Hub
>> C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
>> I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
>> E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=13(Int.) MxPS=   2 Ivl=4096ms
>>
>> T:  Bus=02 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#=  4 Spd=480  MxCh= 4
>> D:  Ver= 2.00 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=01 MxPS=64 #Cfgs=  1
>> P:  Vendor=2109 ProdID=3431 Rev= 2.74
>> S:  Product=USB2.0 Hub
>> C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=e0 MxPwr=100mA
>> I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub  ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
>> E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS=   1 Ivl=256ms
>>
>> T:  Bus=03 Lev=02 Prnt=08 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#=  9 Spd=5000 MxCh= 0
>> D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
>> P:  Vendor=1058 ProdID=1140 Rev=10.03
>> S:  Manufacturer=Western Digital
>> S:  Product=My Book 1140
>> S:  SerialNumber=5743415A4144303235323133
>> C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
>> I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=06 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage
>> E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
>> E:  Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
>>
>> T:  Bus=03 Lev=02 Prnt=08 Port=03 Cnt=04 Dev#= 11 Spd=5000 MxCh= 0
>> D:  Ver= 3.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 9 #Cfgs=  1
>> P:  Vendor=1058 ProdID=1140 Rev=10.03
>> S:  Manufacturer=Western Digital
>> S:  Product=My Book 1140
>> S:  SerialNumber=574D415A4135343330323937
>> C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr=  2mA
>> I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=06 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage
>> E:  Ad=81(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
>> E:  Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS=1024 Ivl=0ms
>>
>> So I need to cat 3u .. right ? Available at
>> http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/1348678668_3u
>> After the copy .. I see
>>
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:51.477641+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.232213] hub
>> 3-2:1.0: Cannot enable port 4.  Maybe the USB cable is bad?
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003074+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757636] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: Device offlined - not ready after error recovery
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003081+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757652] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled error code
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003088+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757656] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: [sdd]  Result: hostbyte=DID_ABORT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003095+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757663] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 17 ab ab e0 00 00 f0 00
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003101+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757680]
>> end_request: I/O error, dev sdd, sector 397126624
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003107+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757721] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003112+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757730] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] killing request
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003118+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757750] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003125+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757769] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003131+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757788] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003138+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757814] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled error code
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003145+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757821] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: [sdd]  Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003152+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757829] sd
>> 16:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 17 ab ac d0 00 00 10 00
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.003159+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.757849]
>> end_request: I/O error, dev sdd, sector 397126864
>> 2012-09-26T19:52:52.018669+03:00 d3xt3r01 kernel: [ 1248.773433] usb
>> 3-2.4: USB disconnect, device number 11
>>
>> While trying to copy ( using mc ) from /dev/sdb1 ( mounted /media/sdd1
>> ) to /dev/sdd1 ( mounted /media/sde1 ) .. Sorry for the confusion ..
>> because I don't know which ones will get in what order I use uuids in
>> fstab ..

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Alan Stern]

Please trim unnecessary junk from your emails.  There's no reason to 
send all the stuff at the end of those messages to everybody on the 
mailing list.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:

> Anything else I can help with ? :| I'm stuck .. dunno what to test
> more or what else helpfull info I could give ya' guys ..

You could run a test with a 3.3 kernel, as Sarah asked earlier.  Other
than that, I can't think of anything.  Maybe Sarah will come up with a
patch for you to try out.

Alan Stern

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

>> Anything else I can help with ? :| I'm stuck .. dunno what to test
>> more or what else helpfull info I could give ya' guys ..
>
> You could run a test with a 3.3 kernel, as Sarah asked earlier.  Other
> than that, I can't think of anything.  Maybe Sarah will come up with a
> patch for you to try out.

I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|
Why ? What causes it to shutdown ? It can copy to/from drives ( in the
hub or directly in the root hub ) .. but what makes it fail sometimes
:|

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:

> >> Anything else I can help with ? :| I'm stuck .. dunno what to test
> >> more or what else helpfull info I could give ya' guys ..
> >
> > You could run a test with a 3.3 kernel, as Sarah asked earlier.  Other
> > than that, I can't think of anything.  Maybe Sarah will come up with a
> > patch for you to try out.
> 
> I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
> gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|
> Why ? What causes it to shutdown ? It can copy to/from drives ( in the
> hub or directly in the root hub ) .. but what makes it fail sometimes
> :|

If we knew the answer, the problem would already be fixed.  :-)

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

>> I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
>> gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|
>> Why ? What causes it to shutdown ? It can copy to/from drives ( in the
>> hub or directly in the root hub ) .. but what makes it fail sometimes
>> :|
>
> If we knew the answer, the problem would already be fixed.  :-)

Would a usbmon dump on a working 3.5.2 ( my fedora ) for comparison
with the gentoo help ( when doing the same actions that would fail on
the gentoo ) ?

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:

> >> I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
> >> gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|
> >> Why ? What causes it to shutdown ? It can copy to/from drives ( in the
> >> hub or directly in the root hub ) .. but what makes it fail sometimes
> >> :|
> >
> > If we knew the answer, the problem would already be fixed.  :-)
> 
> Would a usbmon dump on a working 3.5.2 ( my fedora ) for comparison
> with the gentoo help ( when doing the same actions that would fail on
> the gentoo ) ?

I don't know.  Sarah is the expert on this stuff.

Alan Stern

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:

> I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
> gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|

Come to think of it, you could try running the same kernel on both 
computers to see what happens.  For example, boot both of them from a 
Fedora install disc in rescue mode.

Alan Stern

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Peter Stuge]

Adrian Sandu wrote:
> I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
> gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|

Try what Alan suggested, start the Gentoo userland with the Fedora
kernel.

Do you have some crazy USE flags for your toolchain?

If the Fedora kernel works, I would suggest to re-emerge binutils and
gcc with USE=vanilla, and then build a fresh kernel.


//Peter

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

> Adrian Sandu wrote:
>> I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
>> gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|
>
> Try what Alan suggested, start the Gentoo userland with the Fedora
> kernel.

I tried booting a Fedora-17-x86_64-Live-Desktop.iso .. same thing
happened on the asrock, will try and see if it happens on my laptop
too ..

> Do you have some crazy USE flags for your toolchain?
>
> If the Fedora kernel works, I would suggest to re-emerge binutils and
> gcc with USE=vanilla, and then build a fresh kernel.

[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/binutils-2.22-r1  USE="cxx nls zlib
-multislot -multitarget -static-libs -test -vanilla" 37 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4  USE="cxx fortran mudflap
(multilib) nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc
(-fixed-point) -gcj -graphite -gtk (-hardened) (-libssp) -lto
-multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla"
0 k

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

>> Adrian Sandu wrote:
>>> I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
>>> gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|

Tried to use the live cd on my laptop, can't reproduce it in any way
on my computer ..
Using the same live cd I can reproduce the problem on the asrock :|

Tried with 3.3.8, 3.4.11, 3.5.4. I don't get what's causing the drive
to die from a simple hdparm -tT .. :|
The even more weird thing is that it's not dying every time ..
sometimes a hdparm runs successfully once or a few times before dying
.. :|
Guess I just have a bad luck .. ( altough .. I don't believe in "luck"
when it comes to hardware/software/science .. :) )

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:

> >> Adrian Sandu wrote:
> >>> I tried with a 3.3.8 , same thing happened. I don't understand why my
> >>> gentoo (asrock) fails and fedora(laptop) didn't ! :|
> 
> Tried to use the live cd on my laptop, can't reproduce it in any way
> on my computer ..
> Using the same live cd I can reproduce the problem on the asrock :|
> 
> Tried with 3.3.8, 3.4.11, 3.5.4. I don't get what's causing the drive
> to die from a simple hdparm -tT .. :|
> The even more weird thing is that it's not dying every time ..
> sometimes a hdparm runs successfully once or a few times before dying
> .. :|
> Guess I just have a bad luck .. ( altough .. I don't believe in "luck"
> when it comes to hardware/software/science .. :) )

Since you are using the same live CD on both computers, this has to be
caused by a difference in the hardware.  What do "lspci -vvv" and
"lspci -vvv -n" show on the two computers?

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

> Since you are using the same live CD on both computers, this has to be
> caused by a difference in the hardware.  What do "lspci -vvv" and
> "lspci -vvv -n" show on the two computers?

http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/asrock_lspci
http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/vaio_lspci
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Sarah Sharp]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:02:22PM +0300, Adrian Sandu wrote:
> > Since you are using the same live CD on both computers, this has to be
> > caused by a difference in the hardware.  What do "lspci -vvv" and
> > "lspci -vvv -n" show on the two computers?
> 
> http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/asrock_lspci
> http://d3xt3r01.tk/~dexter/usbmon/vaio_lspci

They're the same chipset.  There's minor differences in the PCI
capabilities, but not much else.  It could be something electrically
wrong with the AsRock system, I suppose.  That's possible if you see
the errors popping up erratically.

Any chance you can exchange the AsRock system?

Sarah Sharp

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

> They're the same chipset.  There's minor differences in the PCI
> capabilities, but not much else.  It could be something electrically
> wrong with the AsRock system, I suppose.  That's possible if you see
> the errors popping up erratically.
>
> Any chance you can exchange the AsRock system?

Nope... I have it for more than 1 year and I kinda' need it even if
the usb3 won't work... at least I can use the 2 ports to dirrectly
connect 2 drives...nothing else is wrong and I wouldn't of known if I
wouldn't of got these hubs...

My only solution if no more debugging can be done is to get a nas a
put the drives in it...

Maybe it's the drives fault somehow ? maybe we should mail wd ?
manhattan's fault ? via ? :) There must be someone/someway/somehow
that can analyze it in someway and say what is wrong ..

Still weird..I'll try on another laptop tomorrow or so ( a dell
inspiron with an usb3 port .. dunno what usb3 root chipset it has )

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Theodore Kilgore]

Adrian,

I think that the suggestion about checking the power supply, the cabling, 
the grounding screws, and anything of like nature that has been omitted 
from this list is a very good idea. If successful it would eliminate 
the problem for you, as well as resolving the mystery. Unresolved 
mysteries are unpleasant for the user, and at least equally unpleasant 
for a developer. 

I have seen hardware do really weird things, myself. As a trivial example, 
once a local computer shop gave me a motherboard which had been returned 
because of booting problems. I was told that it had been brought in twice 
by the customer. No problem had been detected in the shop; they had 
replaced it to make a customer happy. I brought the board home. It was a 
hot summer day. I put it on the floor, hooked up a spare power supply, and 
it booted. No problem. I left it sitting there overnight. The next 
morning, I tried it again. Dead. But in the evening it came to life again. 
Guessing, I looked at the solder joints under the power connector on the 
board. One of them looked suspicious. So I fired up the soldering iron and 
put a dab of fresh solder on it. After that, the board was in use for 
years and never had the booting problem again. The reason that the problem 
was not detected was that it was the middle of the summer in Alabama, and 
when the computer was brought to the shop it was put in a car for the 
trip. The board got warm enough for the solder in that joint to expand 
enough for startup, while en route to the shop.

Thus, I definitely do encourage you to check for hardware or cabling 
problems before deciding to buy additional equipment as a workaround. 


Good luck,

Theodore Kilgore


On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:

> > They're the same chipset.  There's minor differences in the PCI
> > capabilities, but not much else.  It could be something electrically
> > wrong with the AsRock system, I suppose.  That's possible if you see
> > the errors popping up erratically.
> >
> > Any chance you can exchange the AsRock system?
> 
> Nope... I have it for more than 1 year and I kinda' need it even if
> the usb3 won't work... at least I can use the 2 ports to dirrectly
> connect 2 drives...nothing else is wrong and I wouldn't of known if I
> wouldn't of got these hubs...
> 
> My only solution if no more debugging can be done is to get a nas a
> put the drives in it...
> 
> Maybe it's the drives fault somehow ? maybe we should mail wd ?
> manhattan's fault ? via ? :) There must be someone/someway/somehow
> that can analyze it in someway and say what is wrong ..
> 
> Still weird..I'll try on another laptop tomorrow or so ( a dell
> inspiron with an usb3 port .. dunno what usb3 root chipset it has )
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USB Mass Storage on Linux" group.
> To post to this group, send email to usb-storage-ijkIwGHArpdIPJnuZ7Njw4oP9KaGy4wf4b8TPpkIZ3Q@public.gmane.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to usb-storage+unsubscribe-ijkIwGHArpdIPJnuZ7Njw4oP9KaGy4wf4b8TPpkIZ3Q@public.gmane.org
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/lists.one-eyed-alien.net/group/usb-storage/?hl=en.
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

>
> Adrian,
>
> I think that the suggestion about checking the power supply, the cabling,
> the grounding screws, and anything of like nature that has been omitted
> from this list is a very good idea. If successful it would eliminate
> the problem for you, as well as resolving the mystery. Unresolved
> mysteries are unpleasant for the user, and at least equally unpleasant
> for a developer.
>
> I have seen hardware do really weird things, myself. As a trivial example,
> once a local computer shop gave me a motherboard which had been returned
> because of booting problems. I was told that it had been brought in twice
> by the customer. No problem had been detected in the shop; they had
> replaced it to make a customer happy. I brought the board home. It was a
> hot summer day. I put it on the floor, hooked up a spare power supply, and
> it booted. No problem. I left it sitting there overnight. The next
> morning, I tried it again. Dead. But in the evening it came to life again.
> Guessing, I looked at the solder joints under the power connector on the
> board. One of them looked suspicious. So I fired up the soldering iron and
> put a dab of fresh solder on it. After that, the board was in use for
> years and never had the booting problem again. The reason that the problem
> was not detected was that it was the middle of the summer in Alabama, and
> when the computer was brought to the shop it was put in a car for the
> trip. The board got warm enough for the solder in that joint to expand
> enough for startup, while en route to the shop.
>
> Thus, I definitely do encourage you to check for hardware or cabling
> problems before deciding to buy additional equipment as a workaround.
>
>
> Good luck,
>
> Theodore Kilgore
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:
>
>> > They're the same chipset.  There's minor differences in the PCI
>> > capabilities, but not much else.  It could be something electrically
>> > wrong with the AsRock system, I suppose.  That's possible if you see
>> > the errors popping up erratically.
>> >
>> > Any chance you can exchange the AsRock system?
>>
>> Nope... I have it for more than 1 year and I kinda' need it even if
>> the usb3 won't work... at least I can use the 2 ports to dirrectly
>> connect 2 drives...nothing else is wrong and I wouldn't of known if I
>> wouldn't of got these hubs...
>>
>> My only solution if no more debugging can be done is to get a nas a
>> put the drives in it...
>>
>> Maybe it's the drives fault somehow ? maybe we should mail wd ?
>> manhattan's fault ? via ? :) There must be someone/someway/somehow
>> that can analyze it in someway and say what is wrong ..
>>
>> Still weird..I'll try on another laptop tomorrow or so ( a dell
>> inspiron with an usb3 port .. dunno what usb3 root chipset it has )

The only thing I can do is buy other usb3 cables :| It's weird to
think that 5 drives ( 2 bought last week or so from 2 different stores
( 1 wd and 1 seagate ), the other 3 are 2 WDs and 1 verbatim bought
from different shops each (I am a "backup nazzi") ) are all having
problems !

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

The only solution I see is to buy something else, like an Asus
EB1501P-B057E .. I need something small and fast enough .. :| Maybe
any other recommendations ? ( other root chipset / atom cpu .. small
powered .. etc. )
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

> The only solution I see is to buy something else, like an Asus
> EB1501P-B057E .. I need something small and fast enough .. :| Maybe
> any other recommendations ? ( other root chipset / atom cpu .. small
> powered .. etc. )

DON'T KILL ME ! .. I got the best cables I could get my hands on (
double-shielded, 24k golded connectors .. metal pieces .. the best I
could get my hands on on such short notice )... I replaced 2 cables (
to hard drives ) and the one from the hub to the computer. I only got
1 "reset" message in /var/log/messages in 24 hours .. I'll replace the
other 4 just to be sure .. Now I should "spam" the companies and tell
them they should provide cables within specs ..

I guess having 6 drives that close ( among with other powering cables
.. networking (I think I got at least 40 cables in that 1 sq m. ))
isn't that good especially when the usb has another power source and
stuff..

IT WORKS. YEY. Hope this will help somebody in the future. Thanks for
bearing me .. I sure learned a lesson from this. I guess all is well
when it ends well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Theodore Kilgore]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:

> > The only solution I see is to buy something else, like an Asus
> > EB1501P-B057E .. I need something small and fast enough .. :| Maybe
> > any other recommendations ? ( other root chipset / atom cpu .. small
> > powered .. etc. )
> 
> DON'T KILL ME ! .. I got the best cables I could get my hands on (
> double-shielded, 24k golded connectors .. metal pieces .. the best I
> could get my hands on on such short notice )... I replaced 2 cables (
> to hard drives ) and the one from the hub to the computer. I only got
> 1 "reset" message in /var/log/messages in 24 hours .. I'll replace the
> other 4 just to be sure .. Now I should "spam" the companies and tell
> them they should provide cables within specs ..
> 
> I guess having 6 drives that close ( among with other powering cables
> .. networking (I think I got at least 40 cables in that 1 sq m. ))
> isn't that good especially when the usb has another power source and
> stuff..
> 
> IT WORKS. YEY. Hope this will help somebody in the future. Thanks for
> bearing me .. I sure learned a lesson from this. I guess all is well
> when it ends well.

Adrian,

I certainly would not think of "killing" anyone. I don't think anyone else 
on the list would, either. But your problems with the hard drivers are in 
fact an object lesson about flaky and barely-within-spec or 
barely-out-of-spec hardware. The problems are indeed very vexing and are 
quite difficult to isolate. I am glad that a couple of us actually began 
to suspect the hardware. It seems that those suspicions panned out, and 
all is well that ends well.

Even though I was not the first to pinpoint the problem, I had been 
reading this thread and the other post which raised the issue of hardware 
problems really got my spider-sense tingling. I started to remember some 
of my own experiences. Two of them immediately come to mind and might 
serve as a further object lesson to anyone who passes by and reads this:

1. A camera with the SQ913 camera chipset inside. My camera, which was 
used to write the driver code in libgphoto2, worked just fine on a Dell 
Pentium 3 system and on an old laptop with an OHCI setup for its USB, and 
refused to work properly on any of several computers in the house which 
ran an AMD cpu on top of a VIA-based motherboard. On those systems, severe 
data loss, data corruption, and actual crashing occurred while downloading 
still photos from the camera. Putting a magnetic core around the cable 
helped a little bit, but the problem did not go away. So, again, an 
example of a poor specimen of hardware hooked by a cheap cable to a cheap 
motherboard, and there was trouble. To this day I have no way to pinpoint 
the exact cause of the problem.

2. I forget which dual-mode camera it was, but it is one of those for 
which I wrote the kernel support. I discovered the problem at the worst 
possible time: after already writing the code and submitting same, and it 
actually went into a production kernel. When I found the problem, it was 
too late to get anything changed until the next release date. What was the 
problem? Well, the camera needs several mysterious initialization commands 
to start the video stream. Some of these were obviously superfluous and 
could be safely left unused. But I left out one too many. I developed the 
driver on an AMD system with ATI USB host controllers. Everything worked, 
and the code was duly submitted. Then, too late, I tested on a 
Pentium4-on-Intel system. There, the video stream would not start, 
or it would start and speedily crash. When I put back into the driver 
that pesky "one too many" omitted init string, the camera worked on an 
Intel setup, too. What exactly does that one command do? I don't 
exactly know. Precisely what caused the problem? I don't know. All I can 
say for sure is that the Intel (UHCI) system needed for a certain setup 
command to be sent to the camera, whereas the ATI (OHCI) system did not. 
And that is, in fact, something very strange. Go figure.

We are working with computers. Weird stuff is not supposed to happen. But 
it does. Occasionally, this needs to be remembered, as it does 
occasionally cause real-world problems and is often the likely explanation 
for what is otherwise inexplicable. Thus, sooner or later some old geezer 
comes along and reminds people that Murphy is still around to do his 
mischief. I am glad that my suggestions turned out to be helpful.

Theodore Kilgore

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Adrian Sandu]

> We are working with computers. Weird stuff is not supposed to happen. But
> it does. Occasionally, this needs to be remembered, as it does
> occasionally cause real-world problems and is often the likely explanation
> for what is otherwise inexplicable. Thus, sooner or later some old geezer
> comes along and reminds people that Murphy is still around to do his
> mischief. I am glad that my suggestions turned out to be helpful.

I can't thank you people enough .. I just hope that this thread will
help someone else in the future ( feel free to add this to your list
of stories ! :) )
I just hate it when hardware (or in my case, cable ) makes don't stick
to the specs or "improve"/change them as they see it fit. If I'm
payin' for a product ( especially from a brand ) I expect it to do its
job better than others. I wouldn't of expected this from WD ..

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Peter Stuge]

Adrian Sandu wrote:
> I wouldn't of expected this from WD ..

Like with Theodore's problem you don't really know for sure where the
problem was in your setup.

Any combination of USB controller hardware in PC, cable, and
electronics in drive enclosure can have caused your problem.

External disk drive now cost *less* than the exact same model
internal drive, so you are actually *getting paid* to receive
interface electronics, power supply, some plastic, metal and
rubber that makes up the enclosure, cabling, and packaging.

Guess if those parts are of the very highest quality, or optimized
for cost.


//Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [usb-storage] Re: usb3 fails to write when using usb3 hub in usb3 port

[Theodore Kilgore]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, Adrian Sandu wrote:

> > We are working with computers. Weird stuff is not supposed to happen. But
> > it does. Occasionally, this needs to be remembered, as it does
> > occasionally cause real-world problems and is often the likely explanation
> > for what is otherwise inexplicable. Thus, sooner or later some old geezer
> > comes along and reminds people that Murphy is still around to do his
> > mischief. I am glad that my suggestions turned out to be helpful.
> 
> I can't thank you people enough .. I just hope that this thread will
> help someone else in the future ( feel free to add this to your list
> of stories ! :) )
> I just hate it when hardware (or in my case, cable ) makes don't stick
> to the specs or "improve"/change them as they see it fit. If I'm
> payin' for a product ( especially from a brand ) I expect it to do its
> job better than others. I wouldn't of expected this from WD ..

Oh? Why not? Of course, perhaps Seagate stuff is always better. Or 
Microsoft. Or Apple. Or ...??? (:-)

Specs and standards are for violating, you know. Or that is what some 
people think. It has been that way from the beginning of time. But what 
would be the solution? To have neither specs nor standards? One 
wouldn't expect that to work out too well, either.

Peter Stuge's comments are quite relevant, too. He is probably right about 
the category of external hard drives, these days. Indeed, they seem too 
good of a bargain. But maybe we are the ones who are fooled and it is the 
internal hard drives which are overpriced. Who knows? Anyway, one of the 
things which makes life really complicated for too many of us is, the 
statement that "you get what you pay for" is not necessarily true, either. 
It happens sometimes that some fly-by-night or Brand X company is making 
and selling the best product on the market in some category, but they 
can't charge nearly as much money as the so-called reputable producers and 
vendors precisely because they have no brand recognition. So one never 
knows.

Cheers,

Theodore Kilgore
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html