Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:16:35 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Adam Strohl <adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com> Subject: Re: shutdown -r / shutdown -h / reboot all hang and don't cleanly dismount Message-ID: <20130619161634.GA73965@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20130619155346.GG1940@over-yonder.net> References: <51C1979D.3010305@ateamsystems.com> <20130619122143.GA70813@icarus.home.lan> <51C1A9BF.8030304@ateamsystems.com> <20130619133538.GA71689@icarus.home.lan> <51C1BCF6.8090606@ateamsystems.com> <20130619150414.GA72566@icarus.home.lan> <20130619155346.GG1940@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:53:46AM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 08:04:14AM -0700 I heard the voice of
> Jeremy Chadwick, and lo! it spake thus:
> >
> > <unrelated>
> > Readers: if any of you have a ST[123]000DM001 drive running the CC24
> > firmware, and can confirm high head parking counts (SMART attribute
> > 193), and are willing to upgrade your drive firmware to the latest then
> > see if the LCC increments stop (or at least settle down to normal
> > levels), I'd love to hear from you. I have been socially boycotting
> > these models of drives because of that idiotic firmware design choice
> > for quite some time now (not to mention the parking on those drives
> > is audibly loud in a normal living room), and if the F/W actually
> > inhibits the excessive parking then I have some drives to consider
> > upgrading. :-)
> > </unrelated>
>
> I dunno about firmware, but you can smack 'em with a big hammer...
>
> /etc/rc.local:
> for i in 0 1; do
> /sbin/camcontrol cmd ada${i} -a "EF 85 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00"
> done
>
> x-ref:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2009-November/052997.html
>
>
> LCC was somewhere in the upper 400's (I wanna say 480-some?) a year
> and change ago when I dropped that in. It's 506/493 now on the two
> drives.
The above CDB + subcommand disables APM entirely. There is a lot more
to APM than just parking heads (and in all honesty, APM should have
nothing to do with parking heads). Disabling APM can actually have
drastic effects on drive temperature (meaning there are certain chip
and/or motor operations that said feature controls *in addition* to head
parking), and other firmware-level features that aren't documented.
Furthermore, that CDB does not work for all drives. There are Seagate
drives -- I know because I bought some and returned them when the APM
trick did not work -- that lack the LCC-disable tie-in to APM. The
drive either rejected the CDB (ATA status code error returned), while
others accepted it but nothing in 0xec (IDENTIFY) reported as got
changed.
The only model of drive I know that reliably works with this method is
the WD Green/-GP drive, and the drive temperatures do increase. No idea
on the Blues. (Another reason I recommend the Reds...)
What *should* have happened is that a new 0xef subcommand should have
been created for this. Subs range from 0x00-0xff. T13 spec shows
that a huge number of them (I'd say 30% or more) are marked "Reserved"
and an additional 30% or so are marked "Obsolete". And finally,
0x56-0x5c, 0xd6-0xdc and 0xe0 are "Vendor Specific".
But looking at this from a more general view, the real issue is that
these types of features should not have been introduced to begin with.
The vendors introduced this problem, and now are marketing drives with
said feature disabled, claiming "we fixed the problem that annoys so
many of you!" -- the same problem **they introduced without asking
anyone**.
I will have -- and eat -- their souls.
--
| Jeremy Chadwick jdc@koitsu.org |
| UNIX Systems Administrator http://jdc.koitsu.org/ |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130619161634.GA73965>