On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:36:28PM -0800, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On 07-Nov-2003 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > So far this has happened (well, the panic above was new) on 5 separate
> > > machines that were all working on older -current. Now,
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:36:28PM -0800, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On 07-Nov-2003 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > So far this has happened (well, the panic above was new) on 5 separate
> > > machines that were all working on older -current. Now,
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 07-Nov-2003 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > So far this has happened (well, the panic above was new) on 5 separate
> > machines that were all working on older -current. Now, these are all
> > IBM DeathStar drives, but previously I was only experiencing ata
>
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:10:07AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=40
> ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=40
> ad0: TIMEOUT - READ_DMA retrying (2 retries left)
> ata0: resetting devices ..
> ad0: FAILURE - already active DMA on this device
> ad0: settin
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Soren Schmidt wrote:
> > 1) All my drives have performed mass suicide at once
>
> You know, with deathstar's you cant really rule that out :)
:-)
> > Furthermore, I'd like to know why the panic occurred above.
>
> Is this on a brand new -current ? lots
If you are running -CURRENT, you can check the SMART status of the
drives with the port sysutils/smartmontools. If the drive supports >
ATA-3 commands, you should be able to see if there are errors being
reported by the drive itself.
Ed
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 13:33, Soren Schmidt wrote:
> It see
On 07-Nov-2003 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> So far this has happened (well, the panic above was new) on 5 separate
> machines that were all working on older -current. Now, these are all
> IBM DeathStar drives, but previously I was only experiencing ata
> errors every month or two, and they were correct
It seems Kris Kennaway wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Since upgrading the bento package machines to -current I am getting
> a lot of the following errors:
>
> ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=40
That does look like a valid error condition from the drive...
> 1) All my drives hav
Since upgrading the bento package machines to -current I am getting
a lot of the following errors:
ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=40
For example:
ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=40
ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=40
ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=40
ad0: FAILURE
