Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:54:52 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> Cc: FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA Message-ID: <4DAF2BFC.3030504@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110420191922.00002482@unknown> References: <4DAEAE1B.70207@FreeBSD.org> <20110420132001.000058e1@unknown> <4DAECFDC.2050508@FreeBSD.org> <20110420191922.00002482@unknown>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Cran wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:21:48 +0300 > Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> Verbose dmesg from the fresh system would be appreciated. > > I've put a verbose dmesg at > http://www.cran.org.uk/~brucec/freebsd/dmesg.verbose_20110420.txt Thank you. I've compared your and Daniel dmesgs, and while they are showing different emulated controllers, the problems seems to be common: ata_generic_reset() reports two devices on the channel with CD, while there is only one. As result, attempts to send requests to the missing device predictably cause timeouts. I have doubts that problem is specific to CAM-based ATA. It looks more probable to me that difference is just in command timeouts: 1 second with legacy ATA, and 30 seconds with CAM. Could you show me verbose dmesg with legacy ATA to make sure? Same time I'll try to think what can we do about it. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DAF2BFC.3030504>