From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Tue Sep 29 20:38:12 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD573A0A68C for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:38:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allan@physics.umn.edu) Received: from mail.physics.umn.edu (smtp.spa.umn.edu [128.101.220.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89395188A for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:38:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allan@physics.umn.edu) Received: from spa-sysadm-01.spa.umn.edu ([134.84.199.8]) by mail.physics.umn.edu with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh1f2-000Ojh-Sb; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:38:04 -0500 Message-ID: <560AF6AD.3010803@physics.umn.edu> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:38:05 -0500 From: Graham Allan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?S2FybGkgU2rDtmJlcmc=?= CC: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Cannot replace broken hard drive with LSI HBA References: <1443447383.5271.66.camel@data-b104.adm.slu.se> <5609578E.1050606@physics.umn.edu> <1443507440.5271.72.camel@data-b104.adm.slu.se> In-Reply-To: <1443507440.5271.72.camel@data-b104.adm.slu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:38:12 -0000 On 9/29/2015 1:17 AM, Karli Sjöberg wrote: >> >> Regarding your experience with firmware 20, I believe it is "known bad", >> though some seem to disagree. Certainly when building my recent-ish >> large 9.3 servers I specifically tested it and got consistent data >> corruption. There is now a newer release of firmware 20 , "20.00.04.00" >> which seems to be fixed - see this thread: >> >> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2015-August/006793.html > > No, firmware 20.00.04.00 and driver 20.00.00.00-fbsd was the one that > was used when ZFS freaked out, so it´s definitely not fixed. > > I think this calls for a bug report. That is curious, since I could rapidly get data corruption with firmware 20.00.00.00, yet ran a stress test for about a week with 20.00.04.00 with no issues. That was with FreeBSD 9.3, but I just updated my test system to 10.2, and it has been running the same stress test for 4-5 hours again with no issues. I don't doubt your experience at all, of course, but I wonder what is different? For what it's worth, my test machine is a Dell R610 with Dell TYVGC HBA (unclear whether this is a 9207-8e or 9205-8e), and WD Red drives in a Supermicro SC847 chassis. Graham