From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 18 08:39:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661FC16A4B3 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from woozle.rinet.ru (woozle.rinet.ru [195.54.192.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78AC43F75 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by woozle.rinet.ru (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9IFd5Lq033607; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:39:05 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:39:05 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky To: Dan Langille In-Reply-To: <3F91235F.16514.8819817@localhost> Message-ID: <20031018193553.T6850@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <3F90F7E2.12674.7D7B961@localhost> <3F91235F.16514.8819817@localhost> X-NCC-RegID: ru.rinet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: erorrs from spec_getpages X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 15:39:08 -0000 On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Dan Langille wrote: [snip] DL> > Well I was in impression you've swapped out the disk, not cable, hence my DL> > assumption. Sure it may be wrong cable; however, I suppose at least some ATA DL> > errors should be logged somewhere before spec_getpages... DL> DL> They may have been, but they were not in /var/log/messages. If they DL> were on the console, they were scrolled off the top. I couldn't DL> scroll up because the keyboard hadn't been attached at boot, and I DL> had not modified the kernel to allow for that situation. That's why I always try to set up logged serial console for any machine with more than marginal importance. BTW, comms/conserver-com port is of great use for this purpose! I assumed here that usually you have more than one machine per physical location; otherwise, I'd set up remote logging, preferrably to two different machines via two different interfaces, but such ideal network design is *rarely* reqchable ;-) Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------