FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-21-2008, 11:41 AM
Matt
 
Default hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE

I upgraded my Centos 4.7 server last night. Switched from a cheaper
50$ asus motherboard to a Supermicro motherboard. I also, using dd,
copied entire 500g SATA seagate drive to new 500g SATA seagate drive
so as to have two copies in case something went wrong.

Anyway, now I keep getting this error:

Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: hda: status timeout: status=0xd0 { Busy }
Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel:
Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: ide: failed opcode was: unknown
Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE
Nov 21 06:08:34 server kernel: ide0: reset: success

Found one website that told me too try hdparm -i to see whats up:

/dev/hda:

Model=ST3500320AS, FwRev=SD15, SerialNo=
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs RotSpdTol>.5% }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=4
BuffType=unknown, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: unknown:

* signifies the current active mode

So from recommendation on website I did this to match MaxMultiSect:

hdparm -m16 /dev/hda

then tried this to turn MultSect off:

hdparm -m0 /dev/hda

Still getting error. The Supermicro MBD-X7SBL-LN1-O motherboard has
basically all defaults set in bios.

Any ideas? Thanks.

Matt
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-21-2008, 07:13 PM
Matt
 
Default hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE

I am coming to conclusion that CentOS 4.7 does not support the Intel
ICH9R SATA controller very well. My disk I/O is really slowing down
as well. Any solutions besides replacing motherboard to fix it?

Thanks.

Matt


> I upgraded my Centos 4.7 server last night. Switched from a cheaper
> 50$ asus motherboard to a Supermicro motherboard. I also, using dd,
> copied entire 500g SATA seagate drive to new 500g SATA seagate drive
> so as to have two copies in case something went wrong.
>
> Anyway, now I keep getting this error:
>
> Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: hda: status timeout: status=0xd0 { Busy }
> Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel:
> Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: ide: failed opcode was: unknown
> Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE
> Nov 21 06:08:34 server kernel: ide0: reset: success
>
> Found one website that told me too try hdparm -i to see whats up:
>
> /dev/hda:
>
> Model=ST3500320AS, FwRev=SD15, SerialNo=
> Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs RotSpdTol>.5% }
> RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=4
> BuffType=unknown, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
> CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455
> IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
> PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
> DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
> UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
> AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
> Drive conforms to: unknown:
>
> * signifies the current active mode
>
> So from recommendation on website I did this to match MaxMultiSect:
>
> hdparm -m16 /dev/hda
>
> then tried this to turn MultSect off:
>
> hdparm -m0 /dev/hda
>
> Still getting error. The Supermicro MBD-X7SBL-LN1-O motherboard has
> basically all defaults set in bios.
>
> Any ideas? Thanks.
>
> Matt
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-21-2008, 08:52 PM
Scott Silva
 
Default hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE

on 11-21-2008 4:41 AM Matt spake the following:
> I upgraded my Centos 4.7 server last night. Switched from a cheaper
> 50$ asus motherboard to a Supermicro motherboard. I also, using dd,
> copied entire 500g SATA seagate drive to new 500g SATA seagate drive
> so as to have two copies in case something went wrong.
>
> Anyway, now I keep getting this error:
>
> Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: hda: status timeout: status=0xd0 { Busy }
> Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel:
> Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: ide: failed opcode was: unknown
> Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE
> Nov 21 06:08:34 server kernel: ide0: reset: success
>
> Found one website that told me too try hdparm -i to see whats up:
>
> /dev/hda:
>
> Model=ST3500320AS, FwRev=SD15, SerialNo=
> Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs RotSpdTol>.5% }
> RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=4
> BuffType=unknown, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
> CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455
> IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
> PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
> DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
> UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
> AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
> Drive conforms to: unknown:
>
> * signifies the current active mode
>
> So from recommendation on website I did this to match MaxMultiSect:
>
> hdparm -m16 /dev/hda
>
> then tried this to turn MultSect off:
>
> hdparm -m0 /dev/hda
>
> Still getting error. The Supermicro MBD-X7SBL-LN1-O motherboard has
> basically all defaults set in bios.
>
> Any ideas? Thanks.
>
> Matt
If the drives were different in size, dd could have truncated something. It
isn't always the best tool to use. Maybe try again with a different tool.

Also the fact that the drive is showing up as /dev/hda instead of /dev/sda
means that you are not using the best driver for the hard drive. Go into the
bios and try either native mode to serial ATA or SATA AHCI enable.
You might need to rebuild the initrd from a rescue disk after you boot.

--
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-21-2008, 10:48 PM
Matt
 
Default hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE

> Also the fact that the drive is showing up as /dev/hda instead of /dev/sda
> means that you are not using the best driver for the hard drive. Go into the
> bios and try either native mode to serial ATA or SATA AHCI enable.
> You might need to rebuild the initrd from a rescue disk after you boot.

>>native mode to serial ATA

Did that. Now it shows up as sda again. I no longer get the errors
either but I get this now.

[root@server log]# hdparm -i /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
HDIO_GET_IDENTITY failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device

Smartd also complains on boot up.

Any ideas?

Matt
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-21-2008, 10:53 PM
"nate"
 
Default hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE

Matt wrote:

> /dev/sda:
> HDIO_GET_IDENTITY failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device

I was looking into your original issue earlier and saw a post
mentioning that hdparm didn't work with sata drives?

Not sure how old the post was or how accurate, I've never had
to use hdparm myself.

Perhaps 'sdparm' is what you need, never heard of that until
about 10 seconds ago looking at this topic again.

http://linux.die.net/man/8/sdparm

nate

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-21-2008, 11:40 PM
MHR
 
Default hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Matt <lm7812@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also the fact that the drive is showing up as /dev/hda instead of /dev/sda
>> means that you are not using the best driver for the hard drive. Go into the
>> bios and try either native mode to serial ATA or SATA AHCI enable.
>> You might need to rebuild the initrd from a rescue disk after you boot.
>
>>>native mode to serial ATA
>
> Did that. Now it shows up as sda again. I no longer get the errors
> either but I get this now.
>
> [root@server log]# hdparm -i /dev/sda
>
> /dev/sda:
> HDIO_GET_IDENTITY failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device
>
> Smartd also complains on boot up.
>

Smartd is not that smart - it has known issues with SATA drives, as I
have posted on in this group recently.

I ran smartctl and Seatool (from Seagate, since mine is a Seagate
drive) tests on it and had no problems. Of course, my WD and Hitachi
SATA drives don't do this, so maybe it is peculiar to Seagates....

mhr
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-22-2008, 12:02 AM
Matt
 
Default hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE

>>> Also the fact that the drive is showing up as /dev/hda instead of /dev/sda
>>> means that you are not using the best driver for the hard drive. Go into the
>>> bios and try either native mode to serial ATA or SATA AHCI enable.
>>> You might need to rebuild the initrd from a rescue disk after you boot.
>>
>>>>native mode to serial ATA
>>
>> Did that. Now it shows up as sda again. I no longer get the errors
>> either but I get this now.
>>
>> [root@server log]# hdparm -i /dev/sda
>>
>> /dev/sda:
>> HDIO_GET_IDENTITY failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device
>>
>> Smartd also complains on boot up.
>>
>
> Smartd is not that smart - it has known issues with SATA drives, as I
> have posted on in this group recently.
>
> I ran smartctl and Seatool (from Seagate, since mine is a Seagate
> drive) tests on it and had no problems. Of course, my WD and Hitachi
> SATA drives don't do this, so maybe it is peculiar to Seagates....

Smartd is having a fit about Seek_Error_Rate. Like you said from
looking at a few google searches this is normal with Seagate drives
and does not mean they will fail.

I think I may be close to having most issues straightened out with
this messy upgrade. My iostats are still 3 times higher then prior to
upgrade though. Is it perhaps an issue that Centos 4.7 does not
support the Intel ICH9R SATA controller very well?

Thanks.

Matt
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:53 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org