From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:52:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:52:38 -0400 Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.18]:9998 "EHLO mailout04.sul.t-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:52:23 -0400 Message-ID: <3B994F74.F97196BC@t-online.de> Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 00:51:32 +0200 From: SPATZ1@t-online.de (Frank Schneider) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [de] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-test i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Justin T. Gibbs" CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: AIC + RAID1 error? (was: Re: aic7xxx errors) In-Reply-To: <200109072232.f87MWWY92133@aslan.scsiguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Justin T. Gibbs" schrieb: > > >Okay, I had it again today: > > You need to be running with aic7xxx=verbose for these messages to be > useful. In the 6.2.2 driver release I've turned these messages on > by default. Could you please shortly explain what this option does...(before it fills my logfiles with notes "succesfully wrote 1 Byte to disk abc"..:-) i had recently also some problems with aic7xxx, but they where due to a misconfigured scsi-bus and perhaps a bad drive (is still under test), so i enabled scsi error logging in the kernel (2.4.3, RH7.1) and by sending the following strings to /proc/scsi/scsi: /bin/echo "scsi log error 5" > /proc/scsi/scsi /bin/echo "scsi log mlqueue 3" > /proc/scsi/scsi /bin/echo "scsi log hlcomplete 1" > /proc/scsi/scsi /bin/echo "scsi log scan 5" > /proc/scsi/scsi But it did not give me that kind of info i wanted to see...does the "aic7xxx=verbose" something similar or something completly different ? > >Kernel was 2.4.9ac9 with (new) AIC driver 6.2.1, compiled with "Maximum > >Number of TCQ Commands per Device" set to 64. > > This is 8 times the tag load the old driver defaults to. Thats true, and e.g., my relatively new IBM-drives (DGHS18V, 2x DNES-309170W, DDRS-39130W, all Server-disks according to IBM) can only 64...and the kernel complains, if i compile it with 255 and locks to 64...as i have played with this feature a while ago, i did not realize a big performance-plus from 8 to 64, so i switched to 32...and i would go down to <8 if i where in doubt.... > >So I compiled the same kernel with the old AIC driver and it works fine. Test it longer and under load...i also "cured" a bad scsi-bus by switching drivers one time...sometimes it really seems to work...for some days...:-) > Which may be due to a lighter load on the drive. Its hard to say without > the verbose messages and the full dmesg for the machine. You're IBM drive > may be running the "if I miss a seek, I fall off the bus" firmware where > the bug is only triggered under high load. Send the dmesg output and we'll > see. Solong... Frank. -- Frank Schneider, . Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. ... -.-