linux-kernel - Re: SSD + sata

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C049C6A.8060605@garzik.org>
Date:	Tue, 01 Jun 2010 01:36:42 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: SSD + sata_nv + btrfs oops

On 05/31/2010 11:04 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been running an Intel SSD (the KS one) on my Dell XPS710 desktop
> machine, with btrfs on it.
>
> I'm not sure the btrfs oops isn't due to the disk/controller doing
> something bad (almost guaranteed).

The btrfs oops may be poor handling of an I/O error thrown by the block 
error.

Root cause is definitely your SATA PHY throwing some hardware errors 
from the transport layer (low level SATA packet transmission failures). 
  Everything else sorta falls apart after that.

First guesses are the usual suspects: cabling, temperature, power or 
SATA ports on the [SATA controller | SATA device] going bad.

Disabling swncq will only improve things from the perspective of slowing 
things down and giving the hardware less to do.  swncq makes things 
parallel, so forcing only one transaction at a time certainly increases 
the chances of success by reducing complexity and serializing transactions.

	Jeff

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/