special test request for 6.1-BETA1 on ATA disks

[Bernd Walter]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 11:52:44PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 11:23:11PM +0100, Sten Spans wrote..
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > 
> > >On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:19:11AM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote..
> > >>Folks,
> > >>
> > >>I am getting the strong impression that there is something hosed
> > >>related to ATA at least on the DS10 and DS10L.  Test installs
> > >>on ATA disks work fine, but the first boot of the installed disk
> > >>fails miserably, typically the symptom is that the first shell won't
> > >>start or similar.  I got:
> > >>
> > >>Trying to mount root from ufs:/dev/ad0a
> > >>/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /lib/libc.so.6: Unsupported relocation type 
> > >>1611047936
> > >>in non-PLT relocations
> > >>
> > >>Observed on one DS10 and one DS10L.  The problem does not
> > >>occur when you use a SCSI disk (which I typically do so I missed this
> > >>before).
> > >>
> > >>Those of you who own this machine type and have a spare IDE drive,
> > >>can you please test it?  Other reports for different system models
> > >>are interesting too of course.
> > >
> > >A check of 5.5-BETA1 would be interesting too.
> > 
> > I'll give it a go this weekend on my ds10
> > (which also normally runs scsi :)
> 
> Looks like it is not only DS10, my 164SX has similar probs as well.
> 5.5-BETA1 and 6.1-BETA1 have it.  In total we have seen it on 2 DS10L,
> one DS10 and a 164SX now.  SCSI is just fine.  

Interesting - after an Update of my PC164 from an 5.1 or even older to
a recent 5.x I noticed lot of mysterious filesystem corruptions that
did not went away after updating to 6-STABLE.
Since this is basicly a SCSI machine I moved the IDE disks to an x86.
I always had the impression of data corruption on those IDE disks, but
after the update things went much worse so there wasn't any doubt about
a real problem somewhere.
IIRC even fsck -n output was different between multiple runs.
Disk speed before and after the update had a major difference, before
it was something around 2M/s and after the update I got >10M/s.
My assumption at that time was a cabeling problem, which was triggered
by the larger speed.

-- 
B.Walter                   BWCT                http://www.bwct.de
bernd at bwct.de                                  info at bwct.de