Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 20:28:49 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> To: yves@cpcoup5.tn.tudelft.nl (Yves Fonk) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SCSI problems (?) Message-ID: <199503020128.UAA00661@hda.com> In-Reply-To: <9503012337.AA16595@cpcoup5.tn.tudelft.nl> from "Yves Fonk" at Mar 2, 95 00:37:54 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yves Fonk writes: > > Hi, > > I know the SCSI driver is going to be renewed soon. I just want to report the > problems I have had with a SCSI drive in case its cause lies somewhere else. Not renewed, just changed a little. > > I've had problems the last few days, but hadn't time to look into it. > Today I wanted to upgrade from sup to CTM and needed the disk. > Fsck refused to alleviate the problem: it complained about bad summary > information goes ahead anyway, and at the end discovers MEDIUM errors: > > Mar 1 00:01:39 tnfonk kernel: RE info:00000142 asc:03, retries:1 > Mar 1 00:01:39 tnfonk kernel: sd1(aha0:0:0): HARDWARE FAILURE info:00000142 asc > :03, FAILURE ASC:3 ASCQ:0 is "Peripheral Device Write Fault". (We don't print out the qualifier if it is 0; we really should) > It fails to resolve these and the disk stays bad, unusable, and unmountable. It is unusual that your drive isn't mapping out bad blocks automatically on write failures. How old is this drive? > I started up from the old BSD partition (kept for occasions like this :-): > > Mar 1 20:26:18 tnfonk /386bsd: FreeBSD 1.1.0(Current) (SYSCONS) #6: Tue Dec 6 > 03:14:50 WET 1994 > Mar 1 20:26:18 tnfonk /386bsd: yves@tnfonk:/usr2/Current/usr/src/sys/compile/ > SYSCONS > > This one also complained, but one go with fsck solved the problems. It also > removed the bad block messages I was getting. This is exactly what I expected > to happen the first time. Secondly, the ``old'' fsck managed to notice that > the original superblock was bad and proposed to use the backup at blk 32, > the new one didn't and even -b 32 wouldn't help. > All this reminds me that I was getting a message like Shadow superblock > mismatches original, or something like it whenever I started up the ``old'' > BSD partition in the past. I never paid much attention to it then, now I'm > wondering whether there is/was something wrong. When you booted the old partition were you accessing the partition that you are having problems with? As far as I know there is nothing in the old code to do anything unusual with bad block handling. > > Since the problem has been solved I cannot check out the differences > any more. One question remains: isn't fsck supposed to add badblocks > to the badblock list of a SCSI device? No, the SCSI disk should be set up to automatically map out the bad blocks when they are written to. If they are read we have a problem. > > Furthermore, suddenly I cannot write a tape anymore (not write protected :-(). > > Mar 1 19:44:37 tnfonk kernel: st0(aha0:4:0): ILLEGAL REQUEST csi:00,00,80,08 > Mar 1 19:44:37 tnfonk kernel: st0(aha0:4:0): DATA PROTECT csi:00,00,80,08 > Mar 1 19:45:44 tnfonk kernel: st0(aha0:4:0): ILLEGAL REQUEST csi:00,00,80,08 > Mar 1 19:45:45 tnfonk kernel: st0(aha0:4:0): DATA PROTECT csi:00,00,80,08 > Mar 1 19:46:53 tnfonk kernel: st0(aha0:4:0): ILLEGAL REQUEST csi:00,00,80,08 > > Tape drive is an Archive 2525S. Don't know whether its a related problem but > before digging any further may be any of you can tell me what the problem is. I don't think this is related. -- Peter Dufault Real Time Machine Control and Simulation HD Associates, Inc. Voice: 508 433 6936 dufault@hda.com Fax: 508 433 5267
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503020128.UAA00661>