From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750783AbWDTJeI (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:34:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750785AbWDTJeH (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:34:07 -0400 Received: from 220-130-178-143.HINET-IP.hinet.net ([220.130.178.143]:26082 "EHLO areca.com.tw") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750783AbWDTJeG (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:34:06 -0400 Message-ID: <001101c6645d$5c3e9820$b100a8c0@erich2003> From: "erich" To: "Jens Axboe" Cc: , , "\"Al Viro\"" , "\"Andrew Morton\"" , "\"Randy.Dunlap\"" , "\"Matti Aarnio\"" , , "\"James Bottomley\"" , "\"Chris Caputo\"" References: <004a01c65470$412daaa0$b100a8c0@erich2003> <20060330192057.4bd8c568.akpm@osdl.org> <20060331074237.GH14022@suse.de> <002901c65e33$ceac9e00$b100a8c0@erich2003> <20060419104009.GB614@suse.de> <003301c663b3$6bfcc020$b100a8c0@erich2003> <20060419131916.GH614@suse.de> <001401c6641d$586bd950$b100a8c0@erich2003> <20060420064249.GO614@suse.de> <001e01c66451$f9a470f0$b100a8c0@erich2003> <20060420082357.GU614@suse.de> Subject: Re: new Areca driver in 2.6.16-rc6-mm2 appears to be broken Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:32:34 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2006 09:27:22.0656 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0F11200:01C6645C] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear Dear Jens Axboe, I will try debench on the fs with larger xfer size when I enter my Lab. next time. In the previous testing I do iometer and bonnie++ bench with ext3 riserfs file system. I have test the transfer size from 2K to 5M with random/sequence read/write each term 2 hours. When those three testing platforms all have completion. There were not any one message appear as this. I have done same testing with ext2 512 sectors and all done well. I will find the difference of each LBA value , request length between 512 sectors and 4096 sectors. Best Regards Erich Chen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Axboe" To: "erich" Cc: ; ; "Al Viro" ; "Andrew Morton" ; "Randy.Dunlap" ; "Matti Aarnio" ; ; "James Bottomley" ; "Chris Caputo" Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:23 PM Subject: Re: new Areca driver in 2.6.16-rc6-mm2 appears to be broken > > (don't top post!) > > On Thu, Apr 20 2006, erich wrote: >> Dear Dear Jens Axboe, >> >> Thanks for your notification and advice. >> Areca's firmware has max sg entries of 38 limit. >> In my debug driver I had add this condition check. >> But no one request more than 38 sg. >> Both transfer length all have a lot of requests equal with 38 sg. >> But why it ocur only at 4096 sectors? >> If the /sys/block/sda/queue/max_sectors_kb equal 256 all operation >> running >> well. >> But if I modify it more than 256, the bug appeared. >> I will do more research about why there were a lot of requests equal >> with >> 38 sg in all file system. > > It was just a suggestion, the bug might very well be just the size of > the transfer itself and nothing SG related. All I can say for sure is > that I'd be very surprised if this fs corruption isn't due to the > hardware mangling the data for large transfers. > >> And only it ocur at the volume that format with mkfs.ext2. > > Most likely a coincidence, try running eg dbench or other stress tests > on the fs with larger xfer size and I'm sure it'll corrupt eventually as > well. > > > -- > Jens Axboe >