Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:37:52 -0800 | From | Linda Walsh <> | Subject | Re:Believed resolved: SATA kern-buffRd read slow: based on promise driver bug |
| |
Mikael Pettersson wrote: > Linda Walsh writes: > > Robert Hancock wrote: > > > Linda Walsh wrote: > > >>>> read rate began falling; at 128k block-reads-at-a-time or larger, it > > >>>> drops below 20MB/s (only on buffered SATA). > > > > But more importantly -- I notice a chronic error message associate > > with this drive that may be causing some or all of the problem: > > --- > > ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 > > ata1.00: port_status 0x20080000 > > ata1.00: cmd c8/00:10:30:06:03/00:00:00:00:00/e0 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 8192 in > > res 50/00:00:3f:06:03/00:00:00:00:00/e0 Emask 0x2 (HSM violation) > > ata1: limiting SATA link speed to 1.5 Gbps > > > Looks like the Promise ASIC SG bug. Apply > <http://user.it.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/patches/sata_promise/patch-sata_promise-1-asic-sg-bug-fix-v3-2.6.23> > and let us know if things improve. > > /Mikael > --- Yep! Hope that's making it into a patch soon or, at least 2.6.24. Kernel buffered
I seem to remember reading about some problems with Promise SATA & ACPI. Does this address that or is that a separate issue? (Am using no-acpi for now, but would like to try acpi again if it may be fixed (last time I tried it with this card, "sdb" went "offline" (once it unmounted itself and refused to be remounted (no error...just nothing), and another it stayed mounted, but gave an I/O Error...so have been using no-acpi since). An ACPI error in bootup said: ACPI Exception (utmutex-0263): AE_BAD_PARAMETER, Thread EFFC2000 could not acquire Mutex [3] [20070126]
Is the above bug mentioned/discussed in the linux-ide archives? That and I'd like to find out why TCQ/NCQ doesn't work with the Seagate drives -- my guess, since they say queuedepth of 0/32, is that they are blacklisted as being drives that don't follow normal protocol or implement their own proprietary extensions? Sigh. Really a lame move (if that's the case) for Seagate, considering they usage they could likely get in server configs. Maybe they want to push their SCSI/SAS drives?
BTW, can SATA have DPO or FUA or are those limited to SCSI? Would it be a desirable future addition to remove the "doesn't support DPO or FUA" error message" on SATA drives if they are specific to SCSI?
| |