From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271021AbTGVUr4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:47:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271027AbTGVUr4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:47:56 -0400 Received: from ip252-142.choiceonecom.com ([216.47.252.142]:18188 "EHLO explorer.reliacomp.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271021AbTGVUrw (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:47:52 -0400 Message-ID: <3F1DA679.60807@cendatsys.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:02:49 -0500 From: Edward King User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John V. Martinez" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.21-pre4: PDC ide driver problems with shared interrupts References: <3F1C54A8.5020404@snarkhunter.com> <3F1D4DBA.4010700@cendatsys.com> <20030722180732.GA24179@bounce.snarkhunter.com> In-Reply-To: <20030722180732.GA24179@bounce.snarkhunter.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Do not compile the devfs -- I beleive if you compile it, it will be used (it can't be compiled as a module). I caught the error because partimage didn't find /dev/hda1 but found the path devfs uses natively (don't remember, something like bsd, not important) which I beleive (and could be really off base here) that the /dev/hda1 actually pointed to if devfs code was compiled in (I _think_ -- big stress on not being sure -- that devfs makes itself transparent.) Compile without devfs and try it. It doesn't matter how many ide controllers you use, where you put the drives, DMA settings, etc. I found with devfs the raid would crash in a heartbeat but single drives would respond without a hiccup -- even running bonnie on each drive simultaneously for hours. As for more ide ports, no idea. Maybe the new SATA will help there but I haven't played with them. - Ed John V. Martinez wrote: >Hi Ed, > > >Thanks for the quick reply. Sadly, I think I have a different >(possibly related?) problem, as I am not currently using devfs. > >(clarification: my kernel does have devfs support compiled in, but it >is not mounted on my system -- you don't think just having it compiled >in makes any difference, do you? I can't see why it would, but >stranger things have happened -- to me, at least :^) -- I'm currently >running a Debian 3.0 system with their 'Pentium Classic' 2.4.18 kernel >(2.4.18-586tsc) flavor, but the problem was still present when I tried >switching to the 2.4.20 kernel currently in testing. I guess I'll try >building 2.4.21 when I get a chance - trouble is, it's (supposed to >be) a 24x7 server, so I can't afford too much downtime for these >experiments. (Which is why I was searching the web, hoping to find a >definitive checkin comment somewhere that said "John's problem with >two promise controllers locking up his system when he rebuild his RAID >array is fixed now in 2.4.21-cheesewhiz" but no such luck. > >:^) > >I guess if all else fails, I'll use the setup you have: 4-drive RAID >on one controller. My concern was not so much the performance hit of >using both master&slave, but the possibility of a bad drive hosing the >connection to both drives on that controller, thus taking down 1/2 of my >RAID5 array at once. > >Do you happen to know if anybody makes a (Linux-friendly) IDE >controller card with more than two channels? All the cards I have >found which will connect more than 4 drives are hardware RAID >controllers, (or faux-hardware raid, like Promise.) > >Anyway, thanks again for your time, > >-(-- John V. Martinez > > > >On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 09:44:10AM -0500, Edward King wrote: > > >>John: >> >>Quick fix to the problem is remove devfs -- it appears that the devfs >>code doesn't like to have the raid layered on top of it, and it loses >>interrupts. >> >>I've got two systems now running 4 200GB WD's connected to a single >>promise card (ATA100/TX2) with the booting drive (a 5th drive) attached >>to the motherboard. The raid works flawlessly and is fast -- I imagine >>there'd be a speedup by keeping all the drives as master (with 2 pdc's) >>and it would be more robust, but those aren't issues. >> >>Hope this helps -- I'll post this to the mailing list to help anyone >>else with this problem. >> >>- Ed >> >>John V. Martinez wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi Ed, >>> >>>I found a linux-kernel post you made back in March about problems >>>running two Promise IDE controllers in the same system. I have a >>>similar configuration, (and a similar problem,) and I was wondering if >>>you ever found a solution, or if one of the more recent 2.4.21-foo >>>kernels solved it for you. >>> >>>(I have two Promise ATA-100/TX2 (20268 chip) controllers, and I have >>>one 200GB WD drive as a single master on each channel. The two >>>controllers are sharing interrupts with othwer cards, but not with >>>each other. I can access each disk individually, but when I tried to >>>make them work hard: mkraid a RAID5 array using these four drives, the >>>system freezes HARD until I hit the big red button. [Then it reboots, >>>spots the raid superblock, tries to rebuild my RAID5 array, and >>>freezes again, until I get a clue and unplug the drives in question >>>while powered down :^)) >>> >>>Anyway, if you have any more insight into this problem than you did in >>>March, and care to share, I'd be much obliged. >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>-(-- John >>> >>> >> >> > > >