headers
Matthew Dillon | 1 Jun 2007 02:35

Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

    We need to make a decision on the next release as to whether NATA
    should become the default.  I would really like to make it the default,
    but to do so we need some assurance that it won't break things that
    currently work.

    So I'm asking all developers running HEAD who have not already started
    using the NATA driver to start using it instead of the ATA driver. 
    Lets give it a good whack!

    p.s. people running RELEASE should not try to use the NATA driver.

						-Matt
Permalink | Reply | 93 comments |
headers
Steve O'Hara-Smith | 1 Jun 2007 08:00

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Dillon <dillon <at> apollo.backplane.com> wrote:

>     We need to make a decision on the next release as to whether NATA
>     should become the default.  I would really like to make it the
> default, but to do so we need some assurance that it won't break things
> that currently work.
> 
>     So I'm asking all developers running HEAD who have not already started
>     using the NATA driver to start using it instead of the ATA driver. 
>     Lets give it a good whack!
> 
>     p.s. people running RELEASE should not try to use the NATA driver.

	How about PREVIEW ?

--

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |   Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins.                | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    licences available see
                                            |    http://www.sohara.org/
Permalink | Reply | 62 comments |
headers
Sascha Wildner | 1 Jun 2007 08:31
Picon

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     We need to make a decision on the next release as to whether NATA
>     should become the default.  I would really like to make it the default,
>     but to do so we need some assurance that it won't break things that
>     currently work.
> 
>     So I'm asking all developers running HEAD who have not already started
>     using the NATA driver to start using it instead of the ATA driver. 
>     Lets give it a good whack!
> 
>     p.s. people running RELEASE should not try to use the NATA driver.

Matt,

I have a laptop at home which doesn't work with NATA, because binaries 
seemingly segfault randomly. I think several other people also have seen 
similar errors. Thomas Spanjaard suspected this might be an interrupt 
issue but so far has been unable to reproduce it because none of his 
hardware exhibits the bug (another box I have runs fine with NATA).

It sounds similar to what was reported here:

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2007-02/msg00122.html

..except that it even gets to the login: prompt sometimes (with lots of 
stuff crashing on the way). LiveCDs with NATA support compiled in work 
fine, btw.

I'll upgrade the laptop later tonight to see if it still has problems. 
If it does, I'll be happy to assist in bugfixing if you have any idea
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
YONETANI Tomokazu | 1 Jun 2007 11:08

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:35:49PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     We need to make a decision on the next release as to whether NATA
>     should become the default.  I would really like to make it the default,
>     but to do so we need some assurance that it won't break things that
>     currently work.
> 
>     So I'm asking all developers running HEAD who have not already started
>     using the NATA driver to start using it instead of the ATA driver. 
>     Lets give it a good whack!

I gave NATA a try on my notebook PC, and now it boots into single-user mode!
This is a progress, as it used to just get stuck somewhere in init(8) (BTW
I tried to add debug print's in init, but somehow it didn't work), and
all I could do then was to drop in to DDB or reboot.

However, core dumping of random processes still remains, so it's still not
usable in multi-user mode.  Sometimes, it panics on umount, after some
read-only disk activities:
  # mount -r /home
  # find /home >/dev/null
  # umount /home
  panic: unmount: dangling vnode

Another weird thing with NATA is that I'm seeing odd interrupt counts
from `vmstat -i'; with old-ATA, it looks like this:
  # vmstat -iv
  interrupt                   total       rate
  irq0: clk                  402493        277
  irq1: atkbd0                    4          0
  irq9: acpi0                    54          0
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
km b | 1 Jun 2007 11:20
Picon

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

On 6/1/07, Matthew Dillon <dillon <at> apollo.backplane.com> wrote:

>    So I'm asking all developers running HEAD who have not already started
>    using the NATA driver to start using it instead of the ATA driver.
>    Lets give it a good whack!

Am not a developer. though I'd like to say a couple of things about
the stability of NATA driver. With the old ATA driver, I was never
able to get DMA working on my laptop's SATA controller. However, I
have switched to the NATA driver since it became available and haven't
noticed any problem as of yet. It just works and I haven't seen any
random segfaults at all. I am running SMP system without APIC_IO.

cheers
kmb

--

-- 
Something is wrong up on cloud # 9!
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hasso Tepper | 1 Jun 2007 11:45
Picon

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     So I'm asking all developers running HEAD who have not already started
>     using the NATA driver to start using it instead of the ATA driver. 
>     Lets give it a good whack!

NATA is working fine here with 6300ESB SATA controller on UP machine. I'm
using it since release.

--

-- 
Hasso
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sepherosa Ziehau | 1 Jun 2007 17:59
Picon

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

On 6/1/07, Matthew Dillon <dillon <at> apollo.backplane.com> wrote:
>     We need to make a decision on the next release as to whether NATA
>     should become the default.  I would really like to make it the default,
>     but to do so we need some assurance that it won't break things that
>     currently work.
>
>     So I'm asking all developers running HEAD who have not already started
>     using the NATA driver to start using it instead of the ATA driver.
>     Lets give it a good whack!

I have installed NATA kernel, my laptop does not work with it.  Rest
of my boxes work fine, i.e. copy large files, compile LINT ...

I got follow messages when booting NATA kernel on my laptop:

Mounting root from ufs:/dev/ad0s3a
pid 2 (sh), uid 0: exited on signal 11
Jun  2 06:15:26 init: /bin/sh on /etc/rc terminated abnormally, going yo single
user mode
Enter full pathname of shell or RETURN for /bin/sh:
pid 3 (sh), uid 0: exited on signal 11
Jun  2 06:15:38 init: single user shell terminated, restarting
Enter full pathname of shell or RETURN for /bin/sh:

I am quite sure the kernel source code include your latest NATA commits.

For old ATA kernel:
# dmesg | grep ata
atapci0: <Intel ICH3 ATA100 controller> port
0xbfa0-0xbfaf,0x374-0x377,0x170-0x177,0x3f4-0x3f7,0x1f0-0x1f7 at
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Matthew Dillon | 1 Jun 2007 19:34

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

:	How about PREVIEW ?
:

    Good call!   I have updated the preview tag to the latest HEAD.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon <at> backplane.com>
Permalink | Reply | 61 comments |
headers
Matthew Dillon | 1 Jun 2007 19:33

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

:Matt,
:
:I have a laptop at home which doesn't work with NATA, because binaries 
:seemingly segfault randomly. I think several other people also have seen 
:similar errors. Thomas Spanjaard suspected this might be an interrupt 
:issue but so far has been unable to reproduce it because none of his 
:hardware exhibits the bug (another box I have runs fine with NATA).
:
:http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2007-02/msg00122.html
:
:Sascha

    Ok, it sounds like you and Sepherosa have the same issue.  Please
    report the atapci*, ata*, and ad* lines in the dmesg / console output.

    Sepherosa reported:

atapci0: <Intel ICH3 ATA100 controller> port
ad0: 76319MB <Hitachi HTS541280H9AT00> [155061/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA100

    I'm wondering if your laptop detects the same controller.  If so it
    could simply be broken settings for that particular controller.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon <at> backplane.com>
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Matthew Dillon | 1 Jun 2007 19:40

Re: Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

:I gave NATA a try on my notebook PC, and now it boots into single-user mode!
:This is a progress, as it used to just get stuck somewhere in init(8) (BTW
:I tried to add debug print's in init, but somehow it didn't work), and
:all I could do then was to drop in to DDB or reboot.
:
:However, core dumping of random processes still remains, so it's still not
:usable in multi-user mode.  Sometimes, it panics on umount, after some
:read-only disk activities:

    Could you post your *entire* dmesg output booted with NATA?  In
    particular I want to know what controller the NATA code detected.

:  # mount -r /home
:  # find /home >/dev/null
:  # umount /home
:  panic: unmount: dangling vnode

    The same I/O issues causing the core dumps could be preventing some
    of the vnodes from being cleaned up.  Lets try to track down the
    first problem first, then see if the dangling vnode error is still
    present.

:Another weird thing with NATA is that I'm seeing odd interrupt counts
:from `vmstat -i'; with old-ATA, it looks like this:
:  # vmstat -iv
:  interrupt                   total       rate
:  irq0: clk                  402493        277
:  irq1: atkbd0                    4          0
:  irq9: acpi0                    54          0
:  irq11: fxp0                  2649          1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane