Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:03:11 -0500 From: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quality of FreeBSD Message-ID: <20050721170311.GB60080@FS.denninger.net> In-Reply-To: <42DFC345.10205@nurfuerspam.de> References: <1121917413.4895.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050721095732.GG52120@stack.nl> <200507212029.47615.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200507210850530519.03A3275D@sentry.24cl.com> <20050721135839.K97888@fledge.watson.org> <42DFC345.10205@nurfuerspam.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Agreed. I have a PR open on the ATA issues, particularly with SATA drives, and have had it open since before 5.4-RELEASE. It remains open. Careful selection of what's where can avoid major trouble, but this is hardware that worked properly on 4.x for a LONG time - its definitely NOT defective. This is a major sore spot, and is not a trivial issue by any means. Disk I/O is arguably THE major thing that must work right for any operating system to be usable. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://homecuda.com Emerald Coast: Buy / sell homes, cars, boats! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:46:13PM +0200, Martin wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > >- ATA problems. Many of these, while a symptom of bugs in the ATA code > > running without Giant, were very specific to timing, or divergent/poor > > ATA hardware. As a result, they were difficult to reproduce in any > > environment but the original reporting environment. The same hardware > > might perform fine in a FreeBSD developer's system. Many of these > > problems have now been resolved, but some have not. Often as not, the > > problems have to do with retrying requests to drives. > > My system is instable with latest -STABLE kernels, producing ATA DMA > errors. I also think that this does have directly a connection to buggy > ATA code. It seems it is something more general. > > > As I mentioned, > > we believe the ATA code in 6.x is much more resilient, but right now > > what it needs is testing, not merging to 5.x yet. Fixes require just > > as > > much testing as any other change, since a fix for one issue may well > > trigger another issue, especially in the world of cheap PC hardware. > > This is true for me. RELENG_6 is great, but there are still annoying > bugs which prevent me from migrating the system completely. I'm using > FreeBSD mainly as desktop and I really need bktr(4) to work correctly. > Then there is some trouble with ath(4) making my notebook unusable. > > To put it straight, there is no FreeBSD branch which works well > for me since about 2 months. This is frustrating for me, but I try > to have patience, because you do a great job and btw, I cannot > imagine to use my PCs without FreeBSD. > > One more thing about "cheap hardware": if you know that a piece of > hardware is potentially buggy (I mean real BUGS and not missing > support), please publish your opinion, because I will buy hardware > FOR FREEBSD, so I avoid major problems. How about test suites for > ACPI quality, e.g.? Would it be possible? There are people who spend > time to test FOR YOU, you don't need to buy all the hardware in > this world. > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > %SPAMBLOCK-SYS: Matched [@freebsd.org+], message ok
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050721170311.GB60080>