From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Thu Dec 17 14:40:22 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835D34B9C98 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:40:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuripv@yuripv.dev) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CxZRB2JNPz3lKS for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:40:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuripv@yuripv.dev) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 4D4FB4B9B3A; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1294B9C97 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:40:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuripv@yuripv.dev) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CxZRB10zmz3lGj; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:40:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuripv@yuripv.dev) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4C9A32; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:40:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:40:19 -0500 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudelgedgieehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpegjuhhrihcurfgrnhhkohhvuceohihurhhiphhvseihuhhr ihhpvhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeuffegtdehffdtffefkefhgfelie eitefghfeugeelfeduffegtdeufeekgfdvnecukfhppeeluddrvdegtddruddvgedrudeh jeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeihuh hrihhpvheshihurhhiphhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from mercury.lan (unknown [91.240.124.157]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8FC2A108005F; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:40:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: installation on pvscsi fails with "The request was too large for this host" To: Andriy Gapon , current@freebsd.org References: From: Yuri Pankov Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:40:16 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CxZRB10zmz3lGj X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 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: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:40:22 -0000 Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 17/12/2020 07:02, Yuri Pankov wrote: >> Trying to install latest snapshot (20201210) on a VMware ESXi/Workstation VMs >> with pvscsi fails on bootloader step, and the following is in dmesg: >> >> pvscsi0: pvscsi_execute_ccb error 27 >> pvscsi0: pvscsi_execute_ccb error 27 >> (da0:pvscsi0:0:0:0): WRITE(10). CDB: 2a 00 00 00 00 28 00 04 00 >> (da0:pvscsi0:0:0:0): CAM status: The request was too large for this host >> (da0:pvscsi0:0:0:0): Error 22, Unretryable error >> (da0:pvscsi0:0:0:0): WRITE(10). CDB: 2a 00 00 00 00 28 00 04 00 >> (da0:pvscsi0:0:0:0): CAM status: The request was too large for this host >> (da0:pvscsi0:0:0:0): Error 22, Unretryable error >> >> That is the first I'm trying installing on pvscsi since it was integrated, so no >> idea if it worked previously.  If yes, I have not tried to bisect this yet >> hoping that it could be identified as related to any of the recent changes. >> >> The VMs in question are set with 8-64 GB RAM, and 100 GB boot disks. > > Not an expert in this areas, but that command tried to transfer 0x400 / 1024 > blocks, which is 512KB of data. > Could it be that the problem is revealed by the MAXPHYS increase? > There might be a bug in pvscsi where it does not respect or correctly advertise > some limit. There could be a similar issue with VMware itself (its emulation of > a disk / target). Yes, it looks like reverting MAXPHYS back to 128K made the problem disappear, successfully installed VM from resulting cdrom image.