Re: FYI: DMA/33 and kernels

[George Bonser <grep@shorelink.com>]

MORE INFO

WHat I mean to say is that if you install a DMA/33 drive that claimes to
be compatable with IDE, I get a ton of errors that look like this:

hd<whatever>: multwrite_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }
hd<whatever>: multwrite_intr: error=0x04 { DriveStatusError }
hd<whatever>: status timeout: status=0xd0 { Busy }
hd<whatever>: no DRQ after issuing WRITE
ide1: reset: success

I get MANY fewer with 2.0.32.  In fact, I get many per minute with
2.0.3(3-5) yet only a few per day with 2.0.32. This is with plain vanilla
hdparm settings (i.e. the defaults)

Also, with 2.0.35 I kept getting errors for illegal blocks, accesses
beyond the end of the device, fsck failures due to illegal blocks in
inodes requiring manual repair, etc.  None of these problems with 2.0.32.
I first noticed this earlier this year when I installed an 8G drive on a
2.0.33 box. I could not keep the bux running more than a day until I
reverted to 2.0.32 and put the large disk as the slave on the primary IDE.

These are two different brands of motherboards with two different chipsets
that show the same results.

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, George Bonser wrote:

> 
> I have not yet figured out why but 2.0.32 handles DMA/33 disks while other
> newer kernels give all sorts of errors.  On every system that I have
> purchased these new drives for, I have had to revert to 2.0.32 in order
> for it to work. Just thought I would throw this information out to the
> community for further research.
> 
> 
> 
> George Bonser
> 
> The Linux "We're never going out of business" sale at an FTP site near you!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
> 
> 
> 

George Bonser

The Linux "We're never going out of business" sale at an FTP site near you!