Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:01:19 -0700 (PDT) From: fbsdmail@dnswatch.com To: "Alexander Motin" <mav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: why does UATA/133 == UATA/100 on amd64? Message-ID: <f49574537c2e94b5eff2e4c72bfb2edb.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> In-Reply-To: <4C0A295E.5060809@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C09E783.9090007@FreeBSD.org> <mailpost.1275720417.6581091.46630.mailing.freebsd.amd64@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> <4C0A295E.5060809@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greetings Alexander, and thank you for your reply. On Sat, June 5, 2010 3:39 am, Alexander Motin wrote: > fbsdmail@dnswatch.com wrote: >> On Fri, June 4, 2010 10:58 pm, Alexander Motin wrote: >> >>> Peter Jeremy wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-Jun-04 16:36:08 -0700, fbsdmail@dnswatch.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> After _finally_ making the correct decisions to install amd64 on >>>>> an AMD64 system. I was able to make/build/install world && kernel, >>>>> I see >>>>> a difference in drive recognition. >>>> Can you please do a verbose boot and post the resultant dmesg >>>> somewhere (preferably with your USB DVD drive connected). >>>> >>>> >>>>> kernel: ata3-master: pio=PIO4 wdma=WDMA2 udma=UDMA133 cable=40 >>>>> wire kernel: ad6: 476940MB <Seagate ST3500630AS 3.AAK> at >>>>> ata3-master SATA300 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> kernel: ata3-master: pio=PIO4 wdma=WDMA2 udma=UDMA133 cable=40 >>>>> wire kernel: ad6: setting UDMA100 >>>>> kernel: ad6: 476940MB <Seagate ST3500630AS 3.AAK> at ata3-master >>>>> UDMA100 >>>>> SATA 3Gb/s >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The 'UDMA' numbers are meaningless for SATA controllers/drives. >>>> >>>> >>> The 'UDMA' numbers are meaningless for _native_ SATA >>> controllers/drives. >>> >>> They may be not meaningless for legacy SATA devices, using SATA->PATA >>> bridge inside. Some bridges do not support UDMA133 on PATA part, so >>> ata(4) prefers not to use it. But in this case it is indeed >>> meaningless. >> >> If it's not already apparent. The board has an AMD 880G chipset, that >> provides RAID support on 6 ports @ 6GBs. Now, from a purely logistical >> standpoint. The numbers _can't_ be meaningless. It's clear that the >> kernel is making a "judgment call" here: kernel: ad6: setting UDMA100 > > It is impossible to detect SATA->PATA bridge presence, so kernel has to > always follow worst scenario. But as I have said, for this particular > device this value affects nothing. > >> The "judgment call" on both GENERIC/i386, and GENERIC/amd64 was never >> made. The capability of both the port && the drive were accepted. Both >> cases were booted using "verbose" (5). Please understand, I'm not >> attempting to be argumentative here. I just observe this to be true. In >> other words; it must have _some_ meaning - no? > > I have feeling that you have updated your sources while building custom > kernel. I can't explain difference you have shown by other reasons. Yes, that's a reasonable assessment. My "sig" indicates the current version (8.1-PRERELEASE). As a rule, I always cvsup to -STABLE after an install for security reasons, Which is apparently 8.1-PRERELEASE. While the last server I updated (i386) returns 8.0-STABLE. So if I understand you correctly. Unless I have reason to believe the STATA port(s) are meerly a PATA->SATA bridge, I should simply ignore the kernel output regarding them. Thank you again Alexander, for your reply. --Chris > > -- > Alexander Motin > > -- kern: FreeBSD 8.1-PRERELEASE amd64 MB: MSI 880GMA-E45 (socket: AM3) CPU: AMD Phenom X3 440 (3 core) @3.5Ghz RAM: 2 4Gb CORSAIR DDR3 DualChannel PC1600
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f49574537c2e94b5eff2e4c72bfb2edb.dnswclient>