From owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 17 12:17:28 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: alpha@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151F316A422 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:17:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from ant.bwct.de (ant.bwct.de [85.159.14.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9410B43D45 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:17:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de ([10.1.1.7]) by ant.bwct.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k1HCH5tg015248; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:17:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [10.1.1.14]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1HCH1mA072045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:17:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k1HCH09O030780; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:17:00 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id k1HCH0aG030779; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:17:00 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:17:00 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Wilko Bulte Message-ID: <20060217121659.GO3342@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <20060215231911.GB42943@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20060216190512.GA47748@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20060216225244.GC49268@freebie.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060216225244.GC49268@freebie.xs4all.nl> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.4-STABLE alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Report: * -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on cicely12.cicely.de Cc: alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: special test request for 6.1-BETA1 on ATA disks X-BeenThere: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Alpha List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:17:28 -0000 On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 11:52:44PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 11:23:11PM +0100, Sten Spans wrote.. > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > > > >On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:19:11AM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote.. > > >>Folks, > > >> > > >>I am getting the strong impression that there is something hosed > > >>related to ATA at least on the DS10 and DS10L. Test installs > > >>on ATA disks work fine, but the first boot of the installed disk > > >>fails miserably, typically the symptom is that the first shell won't > > >>start or similar. I got: > > >> > > >>Trying to mount root from ufs:/dev/ad0a > > >>/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /lib/libc.so.6: Unsupported relocation type > > >>1611047936 > > >>in non-PLT relocations > > >> > > >>Observed on one DS10 and one DS10L. The problem does not > > >>occur when you use a SCSI disk (which I typically do so I missed this > > >>before). > > >> > > >>Those of you who own this machine type and have a spare IDE drive, > > >>can you please test it? Other reports for different system models > > >>are interesting too of course. > > > > > >A check of 5.5-BETA1 would be interesting too. > > > > I'll give it a go this weekend on my ds10 > > (which also normally runs scsi :) > > Looks like it is not only DS10, my 164SX has similar probs as well. > 5.5-BETA1 and 6.1-BETA1 have it. In total we have seen it on 2 DS10L, > one DS10 and a 164SX now. SCSI is just fine. Interesting - after an Update of my PC164 from an 5.1 or even older to a recent 5.x I noticed lot of mysterious filesystem corruptions that did not went away after updating to 6-STABLE. Since this is basicly a SCSI machine I moved the IDE disks to an x86. I always had the impression of data corruption on those IDE disks, but after the update things went much worse so there wasn't any doubt about a real problem somewhere. IIRC even fsck -n output was different between multiple runs. Disk speed before and after the update had a major difference, before it was something around 2M/s and after the update I got >10M/s. My assumption at that time was a cabeling problem, which was triggered by the larger speed. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de