Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:17:30 +1200 From: Jamie Walker <jj.walker@auckland.ac.nz> To: Tim Joseph <tim@weeble.org.uk> Cc: Marty Leisner <leisner@rochester.rr.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: U/DMA on FSBD 4.x Message-ID: <20010329071729.B16495@auckland.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103280804130.7870-100000@doubtful.weeble.foo.uk>; from tim@weeble.org.uk on Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:10:21AM %2B0100 References: <200103280540.AAA04884@soyata.home> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103280804130.7870-100000@doubtful.weeble.foo.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:10:21AM +0100, Tim Joseph wrote: > I think at the time, Linux DMA support for my chipset was marked > experimental (or maybe just new). Also, enabling UDMA at all was called > dangerous in the hdparm man page. But I admit that I did fiddle with other > options which were "dangerous" too (eg. unmask IRQ) > > Plain old DMA just reset itself without pain after a day or so. UDMA plus > other bits, trashed my HDD. It seems that one area where *BSD is clearly superior to Linux is in the IDE drivers. Various posts to the linux kernel mailing lists have blamed buggy hardware/buggy drives etc for the problems that I've had with my on-board Promise controller (corruption when enabling DMA, etc). Considering that Win 98, Win 2000, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are all able to use DMA on this hardware with NO problems, this excuse is wearing a little thin. -- Fone: +64-9-373-7599 x4679 Room: 2.315, E&EE Dept, School of Engineering Work: jj.walker@auckland.ac.nz Home: jamiew@clear.net.nz ICQ: 5632563 or shout loudly To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010329071729.B16495>