From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 7 10:33:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF2616A4CE; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:33:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (cpe.atm2-0-53484.0x50a6c9a6.abnxx9.customer.tele.dk [80.166.201.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AD343FFB; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:33:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sos@spider.deepcore.dk) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hA7IXfwv010547; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:33:41 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from sos@spider.deepcore.dk) Received: (from sos@localhost) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hA7IXfgj010546; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:33:41 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from sos) From: Soren Schmidt Message-Id: <200311071833.hA7IXfgj010546@spider.deepcore.dk> In-Reply-To: <20031107181007.GA19911@rot13.obsecurity.org> To: Kris Kennaway Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:33:41 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-mail-scanned: by DeepCore Virus & Spam killer v1.3 cc: re@FreeBSD.ORG cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG cc: sos@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Too many uncorrectable read errors with atang X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:33:08 -0000 It seems Kris Kennaway wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > Since upgrading the bento package machines to -current I am getting > a lot of the following errors: > > ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=40 That does look like a valid error condition from the drive... > 1) All my drives have performed mass suicide at once You know, with deathstar's you cant really rule that out :) > 2) ATAng is detecting errors that the ATAog did not That is true, the error detection is better in ATAng. > 3) ATAng is not trying as hard as ATAog to recover from the errors > from the crappy drives Neither ATAog nor ATAnr retried uncorrectable errors... > 4) ATAng has a bug on this hardware. That we cant rule out, and it probably likely.. > Furthermore, I'd like to know why the panic occurred above. Is this on a brand new -current ? lots of things that could cause this has been fixed... -Søren