From owner-freebsd-hardware Sat Mar 23 13:19:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA11803 for hardware-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 13:19:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from burka.carrier.kiev.ua (root@burka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.125.68.131]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA11705 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 13:17:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sivka.carrier.kiev.ua (root@sivka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.125.68.130]) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua (Sendmail 8.who.cares/5) with ESMTP id XAA11165 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 23:19:31 +0200 Received: from elvisti.kiev.ua (uucp@localhost) by sivka.carrier.kiev.ua (Sendmail 8.who.cares/5) with UUCP id XAA14672 for hardware@freebsd.org; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 23:10:08 +0200 Received: from office.elvisti.kiev.ua (office.elvisti.kiev.ua [193.125.28.33]) by spider2.elvisti.kiev.ua (8.6.12/8.ElVisti) with ESMTP id WAA08829 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 22:42:43 +0200 Received: (from stesin@localhost) by office.elvisti.kiev.ua (8.6.12/8.ElVisti) id WAA08802; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 22:42:42 +0200 From: "Andrew V. Stesin" Message-Id: <199603232042.WAA08802@office.elvisti.kiev.ua> Subject: Re: -stable and NCR problems? To: se@ZPR.Uni-Koeln.DE (Stefan Esser) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 22:42:42 +0200 (EET) Cc: owensc@enc.edu, stable@freebsd.org, hardware@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199603222014.AA02130@Sisyphos> from "Stefan Esser" at Mar 22, 96 09:14:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha5] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hello, # } What are you seeing? I'm seeing this sorta stuff: # } # } Mar 17 12:59:39 dingo /kernel: ncr0:0: ERROR (0:140) (40-67-4) (8/13) @ (abc:008c0064). I didn't see the above errors, there was another story -- 2.1R kernel was fine on one of the boxes, after installing a -stable kernel as of 960318 it won't boot, going asleep right after the last kernel printf at the moment when NCR first time touches the disk and fsck should be started. # That's the infamous handshake timeout ... # This feature seems to do more harm than good, # and I'll apply the following patch to -stable # (it has been in current for some time already): [...] I confirm that the patch cured the situation at least for me. BTW the drive is the affected box is 1.08Gb IBM DPES 31080S, a bunch of those drives are happy with NCRs and non-patched -stable kernels here; a failure was a single case out of 6. I'm going to upgrade kernels on other boxes soon, too. -- With best regards -- Andrew Stesin. +380 (44) 2760188 +380 (44) 2713457 +380 (44) 2713560 "You may delegate authority, but not responsibility." Frank's Management Rule #1.