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 18:32:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:32:24 -0400 Received: from aslan.scsiguy.com ([63.229.232.106]:25863 "EHLO aslan.scsiguy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:32:16 -0400 Message-Id: <200109072232.f87MWWY92133@aslan.scsiguy.com> To: Olaf Zaplinski cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: AIC + RAID1 error? (was: Re: aic7xxx errors) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Sep 2001 22:32:04 +0200." <3B992EC4.ED1F82CB@web.de> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:32:32 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >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. >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. >So I compiled the same kernel with the old AIC driver, and it works fine. 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. >I just guess when >saying that it seems to me that the driver developers were focused on >up-to-date cards but not the older ones. This isn't true. -- Justin