Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:46:05 +0200
From:      Unix <unix@dominique-werner.com>
To:        "J. T. Farmer" <jfarmer@goldsword.com>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ad10: WARNING - READ_DMA UDMA ICRC error	(retrying	request)	LBA=11441599
Message-ID:  <42FA213D.1070401@dominique-werner.com>
In-Reply-To: <42FA1F16.7000204@goldsword.com>
References:  <42F7F7E8.1020507@mail.uni-mainz.de>	<42F9009E.3030601@mac.com>	<42F9609E.1010207@goldsword.com>	<20050810023111.GA2913@FS.denninger.net>	<20050810024618.GA8198@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810081251.05298ff0@64.7.153.2>	<20050810133159.GA10150@FS.denninger.net>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810094204.06c46098@64.7.153.2> <42FA1F16.7000204@goldsword.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, I agree. I don't think anyone wants to blame the entire FreeBSD 
community for not being up to date on everything but if it is a known 
problem we should know. I know that the developers work for free and I, 
for one, appreciate all the work they've done. I know I would help if I 
could..but my programming knowledges are too poor..if there is a problem 
though, like the one with the SII and ICH chipsets maybe a FreeBSD 
developer should send an email asking for our help and I bet there would 
be plenty of people to test and script and like...

J. T. Farmer wrote:

> Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
>> At 09:31 AM 10/08/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I've yet to see a developer commit on the list that they WILL 
>>> fix it if
>>> such a controller board is forthcoming (and will return the board 
>>> when they're
>>> done) - I've got two of these cards here (choose between Adaptec and 
>>> Bustek)
>>> and would be happy to UPS one to someone IF I had a firm commitment 
>>> that 6.x
>>> would NOT go out without this being addressed and that the board 
>>> would be
>>> returned to me when work was complete.
>>
>>
>>
>> You demand to see support for this chipset fixed, yet, you cant pony 
>> up a measly hundred bucks to donate the card to the developer who is 
>> not being paid to develop anything.
>
>
> Why?  It was claimed that the code was developed to support this chipset.
> Was that done in the dark, without hardware?  And why must it be a
> hardware donation?  Karl has offered access to the hardware.  Asking to
> get it back afterwards is a reasonable thing.  If the developer wants to
> keep the card as part of a verification hardware suite, then they should
> open their mouth and say so.  I suspect that Karl, and many other people,
> would be more forthcoming with such donations if 1.) They were asked
> in a reasonable manner, 2.) The hardware in question have not already
> been listed as working under 5.x, and 3.) They had some assurance that
> the problem would be fixed.
>
> And finally, the problem has been reported in 5.4 and apparently in
> 6.0-Beta _not _only_ for the SII chipset & SATA, but also for some
> of the Intel ICH chipsets.  And others, such as myself, are seeing the
> same problem with plain PATA drives and controllers that are listed
> as being supported by the ata driver.
>
> In my case, a vanilla, OLD but working Via KT266A/8235 chipset MB
> _will_not_boot an install kernel unless booted in safe mode.  I don't 
> have
> the resources to just give away hardware or buy replacements, just to
> run FreeBSD as my desktop/development machine.  It runs WinXP and
> Linux just fine.  However I _want_ to run FreeBSD.  Part of the that
> machine's rational is so that I can contribute in my areas of interest
> (sound & video editing/production tools, documentation).  I chose to
> install 5.4, the PRODUCTION version, because I did not want any
> surprises, did not want to be hacking a basic system functions.
>
> At what point do I give up and just reformat the FreeBSD partition
> and either release it to use with WinXP or install Linux?  Now mind
> you, I've used FreeBSD, as a production platform, since 2.0.X.  I've
> survived a fair number of "bumps."   But I'm at the point that I really
> want the things that are claimed to work to just work.  I continue  to
> run my servers under 4.X because or all the upheaval in 5.0/5.1/etc.
> But 5.4 was supposed to have those teething problems behind it.
> And the so far the only answer I get is try the ATA MkIII patches for
> a partial fix, move to 6.0 for a real solution.
> So when will 6.X really be Stable?  Yes, I understand that the RE is
> working on getting 6.0 out the door.  But what users are trying to tell
> you is that we need an answer for these problems.  If the production
> release is broken for certain hardware, say so.  If FreeBSD developers
> would rather work on big hairy server oriented problems, then say so.
> If we have to run beta code to get old hardware to work, then say so.
> Then we can make a choice as to what we run or try to use.  If
> no one is interested in making FreeBSD work on the vanilla hardware
> that is out there, then say so.  If FreeBSD is only going to run on
> expensive hand picked hardware (the Sun approach) then say so.
> Those of us who want to switch desktops and light duty servers
> to FreeBSD will give up and move to Linux.  OR back to WinXP.
>
> John
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> John T. Farmer            Owner & CTO                GoldSword Systems
> jfarmer@goldsword.com     865-691-6498               Knoxville TN
>    Consulting, Design, & Development of Networks & Software
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42FA213D.1070401>