Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:05:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 9.1-stable: ATI IXP600 AHCI: CAM timeout Message-ID: <201305291305.r4TD5DAP037954@grabthar.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <201305290809.r4T89EvT024069@grabthar.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Now I have some more information ... The problem disappears when I disable NCQ, i.e. set the number of tags to 1 with camcontrol. Using binary search I found out that the problem also disappears with 2 tags, but with 3 tags I get the same amout of errors as with the default of 32 tags. Interestingly, the problems also disappears when I reduce the SATA level from II to I (i.e. from 3 to 1.5 Gbit/s), even if the NCQ tags are left at the default of 32. Now the question is: Is it better to reduce the NCQ tags from 32 to 2, or to reduce the SATA bandwidth from 3 Gbps to 1.5 Gbps? What is more likely to impact performance on a mixed server with shell users, apache, sendmail, DNS and a few other things? Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsreg.: Amtsgericht München, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen/-Produkte + mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd In my experience the term "transparent proxy" is an oxymoron (like jumbo shrimp). "Transparent" proxies seem to vary from the distortions of a funhouse mirror to barely translucent. I really, really dislike them when trying to figure out the corrective lenses needed with each of them. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201305291305.r4TD5DAP037954>