xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS + LVM + Software RAID5 on Debian testing

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS + LVM + Software RAID5 on Debian testing
From: Steve Wray <stevew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:46:11 +1200
In-reply-to: <40E004FF.40608@steinkuehler.net>
References: <40D87D2D.9060803@steinkuehler.net> <200406280903.35780.stevew@catalyst.net.nz> <40E004FF.40608@steinkuehler.net>
Reply-to: stevew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.6.1
On Monday 28 June 2004 23:46, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> Steve Wray wrote:
> >> Does anyone know if the combination of LVM2 and software RAID5 on
> >> top of SATA works reliably outside of any filesystem issues?
> >
> > We are running a debian woody box, with some things from backports;
> > its got 2.6.6 kernel, LVM2, sata, software raid 5 and many of its
> > filesystems are XFS.
> >
> > We've been seeing lots of problems on the XFS partitions, but
> > touching /forcefsck and watching a reboot reveals that there are
> > frequently problems with other filesystems; / frequently has issues
> > and its ext2 on /dev/hda1 which is a PATA device.
> >
> > XFS certainly complains a lot louder than the other filesystems do
> > when it has problems, but I don't believe that its an XFS specific
> > problem.
>
> What SATA controller are you running?  I think I've traced my
> problems to the Silicon Image 3112 controller.  There are known
> problems with this chip which look like they have been fixed, but
> only if you apply all of the latest patches (latest from 6/22:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ide&m=108793699914304&w=2 )

From dmesg;
ICH5-SATA: IDE controller at PCI slot 0000:00:1f.2
ICH5-SATA: chipset revision 2
ICH5-SATA: 100% native mode on irq 11

From lspci;
0000:00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corp. 82801EB (ICH5) Serial ATA 150 
Storage Controller (rev 02)

I didn't build the box and the guy who did isn't around so that will 
have to do for now
:)


>
> I'm waiting on a new SATA controller so I can start testing again and
> see if that's my only problem.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>