[9390] in linux-scsi channel archive
Re: Adaptec dies after powerloss of a drive
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Peschke)
Mon Aug 14 11:29:22 2000
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:54:05 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Martin Peschke <peschke@fh-brandenburg.de>
To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
cc: linux-scsi@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <20000814102220.A6878@lxMA.mediaways.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10008141646450.5376-100000@zeus.fh-brandenburg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Kurt Garloff wrote:
>
> > BTW, I have a Am53c974 (tmscsim), a sym53c875 and a TRM-S1040 (dc395x_trm)
> > on a SCSI bus and never managed to start a reset war, despite manually
> > resetting the bus quite often.
>
> Uh. Two of these drivers happen to be maintained by you ;-)
>
> > However, the SCSI subsystem should get some memory. If there are a like two
> > consecutive bus resets caused by the same device, it should be just taken
> > offline.
>
> In that respect, we would require forced unmount as well, would not we?
> If I take e. g. a faulty disk drive off-line, say, with a file system
> that is not necessary for the system (say, an incoming FTP directory),
> this could bring the system down with load rising and D processes all
> over the place anyways (I experienced this).
The new eh-strategy takes a device offline, if all resets did not cure the
failed device. I do not think that a fourced unmount happens. sd.c simply
blocks further access (-ENODEV) , doesn't it?
Regards
Martin Peschke
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
