Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Hell.Surfers]

The idea that the community is so desperate it "needs" Nvidia is near to GPL suicide, there isnt one set of rules for Nvidia, and one set for everybody else. They are a company that single handedly bankrupted Diamonds graphic consortium, then they bought them, as linus once said himself, he doesnt make all the decisions and he admits as you do its a community, Linux doesnt need Nvidia OR IBM OR any companys in control with a left hand that doesnt know what their right hand is doing, This is not a pathetic community, it has over 2 million estimated users, its time for Linux users to realise WHY it exists, and the true meaning of the words FREE SOFTWARE. I LIKE, I CARE, MR. Hedrick.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Mike Galbraith]

At 02:41 AM 1/1/2003 +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:
>This is not a pathetic community, it has over 2 million estimated users, 
>its time for Linux users to realise WHY it exists

Yup.  It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely because a 
lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.  His 
"Tom Sawyer::whitewashing fences is fun'" swindle worked too well, and he 
doesn't have the heart to tell everybody that he _graduated_.

Linux exists because working for fun is free... or something like that ;-)

         HAPPY NEW YEAR!

         -Mike

/me stumbles off in pursuit of the wily aspirin bottle.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Richard Stallman]

    Yup.  It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely because a 
    lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.
]

That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
Torvalds.  If by "Linux" you mean the kernel whose maintenance is
discussed on this list, that is true.

You're surely aware that when the media, companies, and users say
"Linux", they usually do not mean the kernel.  They usually have in
mind an entire operating system in which Linux is used.  This entire
system wasn't developed by Linus Torvalds--it is basically GNU, which
was started in 1984.  The system exists because idealistic programmers
had a vision of a different kind of society and had the determination
to make it happen.

If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.

For further discussion, and for responses to all the usual
counterarguments, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Larry McVoy]

Whoohoo!  Here we go.  Someone please rattle his cage about the BK license
and we can keep this going for months!

This reminds me of soc.singles, a venerable hangout for weirdos of all
kinds, yours truly included years and years ago.  I once posted some
inflammatory statement and disappeared to Japan for several months
(installing a supercomputer at Tokyo Institute of Technology, look at
the acronymn, gotta love it), and then came back.   3 months later.
Read soc.singles.  They were *still* arguing about it.

Then and now, the thought that occurred was "get a life".

On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Yup.  It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely because a 
>     lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.
> ]
> 
> That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds.  If by "Linux" you mean the kernel whose maintenance is
> discussed on this list, that is true.
> 
> You're surely aware that when the media, companies, and users say
> "Linux", they usually do not mean the kernel.  They usually have in
> mind an entire operating system in which Linux is used.  This entire
> system wasn't developed by Linus Torvalds--it is basically GNU, which
> was started in 1984.  The system exists because idealistic programmers
> had a vision of a different kind of society and had the determination
> to make it happen.
> 
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
> 
> For further discussion, and for responses to all the usual
> counterarguments, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
[SNIPPED...]
> 
> You're surely aware that when the media, companies, and users say
> "Linux", they usually do not mean the kernel.  They usually have in
> mind an entire operating system in which Linux is used.  This entire
> system wasn't developed by Linus Torvalds--it is basically GNU, which
> was started in 1984.  The system exists because idealistic programmers
> had a vision of a different kind of society and had the determination
> to make it happen.
> 
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
> 

      This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
      Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
      your continual attempt to claim some sort of
      credit for the work of thousands. You should
      take your bottle and go back to sleep. Nobody
      in the industry, except those who have been
      bamboozled by you, think of Linux as GNU/Linux,
      a term you fraudulently coined and published
      in an attempt to claim what has never been yours.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Mark Mielke]

On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.

Actually, since Linux is the kernel, and GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux) is
the collection of tools that make the full system, it would be
*inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
the operating system." Since you are one who wishes to ensure that
people understand the terms properly, and are used properly, I assume
that you would respect this.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Mike Galbraith]

At 01:38 PM 1/2/2003 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Yup.  It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely 
> because a
>     lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.
>]
>
>That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
>Torvalds.

Nope, it was a colorful way of saying 'pbbbbt'  ;-)

         -Mike

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Richard Stallman]

    Actually, since Linux is the kernel, and GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux) is
    the collection of tools that make the full system,

That's almost correct, but not quite.  GNU/Linux is the whole system,
the combination of GNU and Linux.

Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
among the programs we developed for GNU are tools.  We also developed
other programs for GNU that are not tools.  But GNU is not just a
collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
was mostly complete.  (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)

    it would be
    *inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
    the operating system."

The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Richard Stallman]

    >That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
    >Torvalds.

    Nope, it was a colorful way of saying 'pbbbbt'  ;-)

I am not sure what "pbbbt" means, so it's no wonder I misunderstood
your message.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Mark Hahn]

> other programs for GNU that are not tools.  But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992

GNU is a flag of convenience: there's little sign that the many people 
who contribute to GNU projects share the depth of RMS's political zeal.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[venom]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 02:50:23 -0500
> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> To: mark@mark.mielke.cc
> Cc: efault@gmx.de, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>     Actually, since Linux is the kernel, and GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux) is
>     the collection of tools that make the full system,
>
> That's almost correct, but not quite.  GNU/Linux is the whole system,
> the combination of GNU and Linux.

err, excuse me, but where are XFree86 or KDE and so on?

they are not included in the GNU, I suppose.

So we should talk about Xfree86/KDE/GNU/whatever/Linux... too long...

should we focus just on what is mandatory for a basic networked system?

Basically, I could use a libc4/5 based system, withouth gcc and so on, with BSD
inetutils and BSD fileutils (ls cp and so on), ksh anc csh as shells, and linux
kernel.
How should I call this system? (and I have also
systems not running glibc right now, depending on when I installed them.)

I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
syllogismi.

It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).

Luigi

>
> Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
> among the programs we developed for GNU are tools.  We also developed
> other programs for GNU that are not tools.  But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
> was mostly complete.  (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
>
>     it would be
>     *inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
>     the operating system."
>
> The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
> meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
> systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
> Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Andrew Walrond]

> I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
> I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
> same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
> syllogismi.
> 
> It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
> people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).


Cripes. Are you a lawyer?    ;)

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[venom]

no, I am a system manager, but I studied at Unversity to become professor of
latin and ancient greek.


On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:

> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:49:19 +0000
> From: Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
> > I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
> > I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
> > same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
> > syllogismi.
> >
> > It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
> > people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
>
>
> Cripes. Are you a lawyer?    ;)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Bill Davidsen]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:

> > I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
> > I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
> > same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
> > syllogismi.
> > 
> > It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
> > people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
> 
> 
> Cripes. Are you a lawyer?    ;)

No, a sesquipedaliac.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Andrew Walrond]

Sesquipedalian comes from Latin sesquipedalis, "a foot and a half long, 
hence inordinately long," from sesqui, "one half more, half as much 
again" + pes, ped-, "a foot."

Lucky boy :)

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
>>>I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
>>>same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
>>>syllogismi.
>>>
>>>It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
>>>people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
>>
>>
>>Cripes. Are you a lawyer?    ;)
> 
> 
> No, a sesquipedaliac.
> 

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Hugo Mills]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 702 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:25:02PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Sesquipedalian comes from Latin sesquipedalis, "a foot and a half long, 
> hence inordinately long," from sesqui, "one half more, half as much 
> again" + pes, ped-, "a foot."

   From the OED, sesquipedalian (n & v):

   "Of words and expressions (after Horace's sesquipedalia verba 'words a
foot and a half long', A.P. 97)"

   Hugo.

-- 
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
 PGP: 1024D/1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or www.carfax.nildram.co.uk
       --- Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Volvo filled ---       
                           with backup tapes.                            

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Richard Stallman]

    GNU is a flag of convenience: there's little sign that the many people 
    who contribute to GNU projects share the depth of RMS's political zeal.

Developing a whole operating system was a big job, so we recruited
anyone who would help.  We did not insist that people state their
political views before accepting their help.  Do you think we should
have?

In this way we engaged as many people as possible to do the work that
we planned would get us to freedom.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Richard Stallman]

    So we should talk about Xfree86/KDE/GNU/whatever/Linux... too long...

This is a valid point--the name "GNU/Linux" is imperfect.
By the same token, the name "Linux" is even worse.

For more explanation, see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Matthias Andree]

On Thu, 02 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.

Yoohoo. Linux is what makes GNU run nowawadays, because GNU has not yet
brought out a stable release kernel version. When's GNU HURD due again?
GNU is what munches away more disk real estate for a mere localization
than the whole NetBSD system, isn't it?

Enough ranting, GNU is useful and has many useful projects, and having a
philosophy and some tools to make it tasteful is much appreciated. But
please take your "Linux is actually GNU+Linux" noise elsewhere lest you
want some idealistic person like yourself distribute an non-GNU
operating system that is made up of Linux, Linux tools and BSD
utilities. Admittedly, bootstrapping without GCC will be a harder part
of this project, but it's certainly doable.

Tell the press, but not the Kernel hackers. They know they use GNU stuff
when they type gdb or man ls.

-- 
Matthias Andree

aacraid (dell PERC) cannot handle a degraded mirror

[Josh Brooks]

If you are running Linux 2.4.x and using aacraid, and a mirror degrades
(ie. one of the disks goes bad or otherwise detaches itself from the
mirror) the system will panic and crash.

This is, of course, incorrect behavior - if a mirror degrades the system
should continue running because half of the mirror is still there.

Here is a scenario I have seen about ten times in the last few months -
and it is only this frequency and consistency that has provoked me to send
this email:

1. I start getting things like this in /var/log/messages

Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
[command:0x28]
Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
Range 435200 : 435327
Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
Correct
Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Medium Error, LBN Range
435200:435327
Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Starting BBR sequence

Ok, fair enough - disk 2 on channel 0 is bad or is going bad.  Good thing
I have a mirror ... wrong!


2. The problem gets worse:

Mar  9 07:13:00 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162469964, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 00 06 a3 ff 00 00 08
00
Mar  9 07:13:06 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470312, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 03 c2 c2 fb 00 00 02
00
Mar  9 07:13:06 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470320, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 05 79 83 77 00 00 02
00
Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470322, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 01 b6 c3 71 00 00 02
00
Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
[command:0x28]
Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
Range 435234 : 435234
Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
Correct


3. disk 2 on channel 0 fails.  No problem, it's a mirror, right ?


Mar  9 07:13:30 system kernel: SCSI host 0 abort (pid 162469964) timed out
- resetting
Mar  9 07:13:30 system kernel: SCSI bus is being reset for host 0 channel
0.
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470312, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 03 c2 c2 fb 00 00 02
00
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: SCSI host 0 abort (pid 162470312) timed out
- resetting
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: SCSI bus is being reset for host 0 channel
0.
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470320, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 05 79 83 77 00 00 02
00
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: SCSI host 0 abort (pid 162470320) timed out
- resetting
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: SCSI bus is being reset for host 0 channel
0.
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:  BBR timed out at Block 0x6a42d
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:Drive 0:2:0 returning error
Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) - IO failed, Cmd[0x28]


4. System panics and crashes (which makes _no_ sense, because the other
disk is totally healthy, has reported no errors, and makes up the other
half of the _mirror_.


Mar  9 07:13:41 system kernel: Unable to handle kernel paging request at
virtual address 405a2200
Mar  9 07:13:41 system kernel:  printing eip:
Mar  9 07:13:41 system kernel: c0114d0f
Mar  9 07:13:41 system kernel: *pde = 14629067
Mar  9 07:13:41 system kernel: *pte = 00000000
Mar  9 07:13:41 system kernel: Oops: 0000


5. upon system boot, the Dell PERC 3si reports that the mirror is
degraded, but that the other disk in the mirror is totally healthy, and
that the container is present.

6. system boots _just fine_ on the broken mirror, as it should - system
runs fine on broken mirror, as it should.


So, why does the system run fine on the broken mirror, but panics and
crashes when the mirror actually breaks ?

This is very frustrating - one of the reasons we spent money to mirror
things was to reduce possible downtimes (since a disk failure will not
crash the machine) but ... a disk failure does crash the machine.
Explanations welcome.

Re: aacraid (dell PERC) cannot handle a degraded mirror

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:44, Josh Brooks wrote:
> 1. I start getting things like this in /var/log/messages
> 
> Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
> [command:0x28]
> Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
> Range 435200 : 435327
> Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
> Correct
> Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Medium Error, LBN Range
> 435200:435327
> Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Starting BBR sequence
> 

These come from the firmware

> Mar  9 07:13:00 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
> pid
> 162469964, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 00 06 a3 ff 00 00 08
> 00

We start to timeout because the firmware isnt responding

> Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
> [command:0x28]
> Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
> Range 435234 : 435234
> Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
> Correct

Firmware finally gives up

> 
> 3. disk 2 on channel 0 fails.  No problem, it's a mirror, right ?

> Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:  BBR timed out at Block 0x6a42d
> Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:Drive 0:2:0 returning error
> Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) - IO failed, Cmd[0x28]

Drive firmware fails the I/O

> So, why does the system run fine on the broken mirror, but panics and
> crashes when the mirror actually breaks ?
> 
> This is very frustrating - one of the reasons we spent money to mirror
> things was to reduce possible downtimes (since a disk failure will not
> crash the machine) but ... a disk failure does crash the machine.
> Explanations welcome.

Looking at the trace the driver was thrown by something. I think I know
what may have occurred in your case but not in the test/qualification
sets. Somehow the firmware spent so long we aborted/gave up and killed 
of a command - then it completed and we tried to sell the scsi layer.

It'll be a while before I can validate that, you might also want to 
report it to aacraid@adapter.com (I think - see MAINTAINERS file for
the kernel)

Re: aacraid (dell PERC) cannot handle a degraded mirror

[Josh Brooks]

Thank you for looking at this - I have seen this happen many times across
many machines, and it is always the disk that is bad.  Replace the disk,
and this stops happening - even though the firmware was not ever replaced.

Relevant details- (and these are interesting):

1. Controller BIOS: 2.7-0 (Build #3153)
2. using fujitsu drives
3. previously, these fujitsu drives, with older firmwares on the PERC
would confuse it so bad it would drop them off and do this same behavior -
now it only happens when a drive actually goes bad.

thanks!

On 11 Mar 2003, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:44, Josh Brooks wrote:
> > 1. I start getting things like this in /var/log/messages
> >
> > Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
> > [command:0x28]
> > Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
> > Range 435200 : 435327
> > Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
> > Correct
> > Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Medium Error, LBN Range
> > 435200:435327
> > Mar  9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Starting BBR sequence
> >
>
> These come from the firmware
>
> > Mar  9 07:13:00 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
> > pid
> > 162469964, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 00 06 a3 ff 00 00 08
> > 00
>
> We start to timeout because the firmware isnt responding
>
> > Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
> > [command:0x28]
> > Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
> > Range 435234 : 435234
> > Mar  9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
> > Correct
>
> Firmware finally gives up
>
> >
> > 3. disk 2 on channel 0 fails.  No problem, it's a mirror, right ?
>
> > Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:  BBR timed out at Block 0x6a42d
> > Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:Drive 0:2:0 returning error
> > Mar  9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) - IO failed, Cmd[0x28]
>
> Drive firmware fails the I/O
>
> > So, why does the system run fine on the broken mirror, but panics and
> > crashes when the mirror actually breaks ?
> >
> > This is very frustrating - one of the reasons we spent money to mirror
> > things was to reduce possible downtimes (since a disk failure will not
> > crash the machine) but ... a disk failure does crash the machine.
> > Explanations welcome.
>
> Looking at the trace the driver was thrown by something. I think I know
> what may have occurred in your case but not in the test/qualification
> sets. Somehow the firmware spent so long we aborted/gave up and killed
> of a command - then it completed and we tried to sell the scsi layer.
>
> It'll be a while before I can validate that, you might also want to
> report it to aacraid@adapter.com (I think - see MAINTAINERS file for
> the kernel)
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>