Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:17:03 +0100 From: Gabriel Ambuehl <gaml@buz.ch> To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?U/hyZW4gU2NobWlkdA==?= <sos@DeepCore.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re[2]: SI3112A SATA controller RAID support? Message-ID: <1301661531.20040215161703@buz.ch> In-Reply-To: <402F88AB.8010003@DeepCore.dk> References: <1123980863.20040215144711@buz.ch> <402F7E61.1060304@DeepCore.dk> <234276322.20040215153634@buz.ch> <402F88AB.8010003@DeepCore.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Søren, Sunday, February 15, 2004, 3:56:43 PM, you wrote: > However there are *alot* of bugs in that silicon, making it the most > crappy SATA chip in existance, but what can you expect from the company > that brought us the CMD640 etc ;) Well I just figured out that myself. I think it would be best if you were to kick support for it altogether, considering I can't even get 5.2.1 install on it without paniccing (installing base works, but it crashes somewhere installing src, ports or something). The kernel claims to have suffered a page fault but I've been beating on the memory in question with Memtest86 for quite some time now, without finding any problem at all. I'm gonna get a Highpoint based SATA controller tomorrow to check if it's really the SI chips fault (but I'm pretty sure it is). Had I known this was a successor to CMD640 (one of the (possibly even THE) crappiest ICs ever made), I probably wouldn't have bothered in first place (but background rebuilds startable from BIOS looked charming, nonetheless). Note to self: run away from anything with Silicon Image in it. Best regards, Gabriel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1301661531.20040215161703>