Promise RM8000 news [was Re: aic7xxx]

[Petriz, Pablo]

Good news!? Ok, something good is happening when the tower has 1 disk less.

I too have the tower functioning OK since i removed one disk! 

My configuration is disk 1 to 6 on raid5, disk 7 spare, empty bay 8. 
The removal was only to use that disk for backup purposes on other machine,
but since that the tower is running ok. We rebuild the array, create a
filesystem over the 1.5TB of the raid5, run badblocks over the entire raid
and it works! Then we began to feed the raid with data and it's working.

The other phisycal change was the serial cable. I was monitoring the tower
from a second Windows machine in order to use webpam. Now i have the cable
connected to the same server that has the scsi cable and i'm checking via
minicomm (thanks Todd). I don´t think the serial cable could affect it...

So till next fail, we can say that the problem is to have 8 disks in the 
tower.

Other thing to consider: One of my tests was to use an old SCSI card on my
server, and it works fine; but it all happens at the same time: installing
the old SCSI and removing the disk! Well, now the server has the same 
configuration that has when it failed (using the on board SCSI), so the 
big change IS the disk removal.

Lets wait and keep in contact.

PABLO


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Todd Denniston [mailto:Todd.Denniston at ssa.crane.navy.mil]
> Enviado el: lunes 19 de julio de 2004 12:26
> Para: Jurzitza, Dieter
> CC: 'tom at uwm.edu'; Petriz, Pablo
> Asunto: Promise RM8000 news [was Re: aic7xxx]
> 
> 
> "Jurzitza, Dieter" wrote:
> > 
> > Hi guys,
> > the good thing over all: we share the same problems. The 
> bad thing: it does
> > not help. Did anybody of you get into a reliable operation 
> of the promise
> > array? Do you see the crash of the array in 
> /var/log/messages when your
> > system fails? Do you see any influence whether you run SMP 
> / single CPU
> > mode?
> > Thank you for any comment. I am not subscribed to the 
> aic-mailing list, this
> > is why I write to you directly.
> > Take care
> > 
> > Dieter Jurzitza
> > 
> > --
> <SNIP>
> Good news/Bad news.
> 
> Good news
> After I removed from the array a drive which I know to be bad 
> [1].  I know it
> should not have made any difference though, because the drive was only
> physically in the array, it was not locked in so there should 
> not have been
> power or communications to it.  Since I have removed it, I 
> put the system in a
> configuration where before it would last ~16 hours max before 
> lock up, and yet
> it has been running for 23 days. The only change is the 
> physical removal of
> the bad drive!
> 
> It both thrills me and make me mad to find out that a drive 
> just setting
> in the array with no power could cause these problems!
> 
> 
> Bad news
> This seems to be working for me, and neither of you reported 
> having a bad
> disk.  Plus I still think this is something which should not 
> have affected the
> array AT ALL.
> 
> I also changed out the cables to some Belkin F2N1066-06-T [2] 
> but I was still
> able to get the lockup until I removed the drive.
> 
> [1] at least from the perspective of the badblocks program.
> [2] http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=97924
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Todd Denniston
> Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane) 
> Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter
>