Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:56:01 -0700 (MST)
From:      "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@narnia.plutotech.com>
To:        Heiko Schaefer <hschaefer@fto.de>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Problem with SCSI Harddisk
Message-ID:  <199811011856.LAA08811@narnia.plutotech.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810241527150.253-100000@daneel.spacequest.hs>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810241527150.253-100000@daneel.spacequest.hs> you wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> after checking the archives of this list (as well as freebsd-scsi), i
> finally decided to post a problem that i have here.
> i hope this is the right place and way to search for advice (and/or help).

You should have posted to FreeBSD-scsi.  The SCSI developers pay much
more attention to that list (lower volume you know) than this one.

> i have used this harddisk for quite some time without any problems that i
> could notice under 2.2-STABLE. the problem seems to have started exactly
> when updating my system to 3.0-CURRENT.
> (by the way is there a 3.0-STABLE or will there be sometime soon ?!)

...

> da3: <SEAGATE SX910800N 8511> Fixed Direct Access SCSI2 device 
> da3: 10.0MB/s transfers (10.0MHz, offset 15), Tagged Queueing Enabled
> da3: 8669MB (17755614 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 1105C)

Seagate's web page doesn't list this drive model number... do you know the
'family name' for the drive?

This drive shows a similar problem to the Seagate Elite 9 with
certain levels of firmware.  Essentially it wedges when you hit it
wil a high tag load.  I would suggest contacting Seagate technical
support about this drive to see if later firmware is available.
In the mean time, you should try adding a quirk entry to the table
in sys/cam/cam_xpt.c that matches your drive.  It may be that simply
reducing the number of transactions to something less than 64 will
prevent the drive from going nuts.  Once you have a quirk entry
that works for you, I'll commit it to the tree.

BTW, the reason the 2940AU worked for you and the 2940UW did not is
that the 2940AU cannot dish out transactions as quickly as the 2940UW.
If you want high performance, I would suggest switching back to the
2940UW.  See the chip comparison chart in the ahc(4) man page for
more details.

--
Justin

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811011856.LAA08811>