Re: Kernel bug or disk failure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sam Varshavchik wrote, On 07/13/2008 10:51 AM:
Chris Snook writes:

Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Every other week or so, I get a disk kicked out of my RAID, with this:

Jul 6 04:05:38 commodore kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): scsi1: device overrun (status 10) on 0:0:0 Jul 6 04:05:38 commodore kernel: Unexpected busfree in DT Data-in phase, 1 SCBs aborted, PRGMCNT == 0x22f Jul 6 04:05:38 commodore kernel: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dump Card State Begins <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Jul 6 04:05:38 commodore kernel: scsi1: Dumping Card State at program address 0x22d Mode 0x22
Jul  6 04:05:38 commodore kernel: Card was paused

… followed by a rather dry dump of the HBA's registers. This is aic79xxx.

This does not look like a disk error to me. I re-add the drive into the array, and rebuild with no downtime. SMART shows 0 in the defect list on this drive, and over the disk's lifetime 0 uncorrectable reads and 1 uncorrectable write -- but this kernel barf already happened 4-5 times now, and it's getting rather annoying.


Looks more like a controller problem than a drive problem. Do you have a spare HBA to test?

No, but I have one on order, now. I reseated the cable, that didn't help -- the card dumped again about 12 hours later, but it was, apparently, non-fatal because RAID did not degrade.


May I suggest that, when it is convenient to do so, you:
1) reboot
2) Catch the scsi card ( Ctrl-A ) when the aic79xxx boot text shows up during bios operations.
3) set the speed of the scsi bus to that drive to a little slower.
4) if you get the fault or the drive is not recognized, repeat until you get a desired result (some drives do not work at ALL the speeds slower than it is rated at, Promise U160 rated array communicated only at 160, 80, 66, 16 & 6).

I had to work with a Promise array which was
a) a bit flaky even compared to it's twin in the other bay (too late to warranty either one when I arrived). b) had Promise's problem of not knowing how to do domain validation, so I had to turn that off (domain validation only made the arrays flake out sooner).
c) could not work reliably above ~20MB/sec (write or read).
d) dropping similar errors to what you have above in ~4-8 hours of operation.
Slowing it down using the card's settings made it work reliably enough to get the job done.

--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux