thus Denis Lagno spake:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Urban Boquist scribed:
> 
>> Timo> please add this quirk for another this, the Seagate
>> ST3160023A Timo> (160GByte, 7.200rpm, 8MByte Cache).
>> 
>> Timo> before applying the patch the machine crashed when builing 
>> Timo> RAIDframe, with patch applied (i did it for 2.0.2-RELEASE,
>> too) Timo> it runs fine.
>> 
>> Are you sure that it really is the drive that is the problem? Maybe
>>  that quirk is just masquerading some other problem with your 
>> system. Did you try the drive in some other machine?
>> 
>> I'm asking because I have been running a "ST3160023AS" for a long
>> time without any problems at all. Yes, I know it's not identical,
>> but still... ;-)
> 
> 
> well, just for the account. I also have ST3160023A (not ST3160023AS).
> It worked fine until during dump I encountered following strange
> error:
> 
> # zcat /var/log/kern-debug.*.gz | grep 'id not found' | head Apr 24
> 04:35:20 flam /netbsd: wd0: (id not found) Apr 24 04:35:20 flam
> /netbsd: wd0: (id not found) Apr 24 04:35:20 flam /netbsd: wd0: (id
> not found) Apr 24 04:35:20 flam /netbsd: wd0: (id not found) Apr 24
> 04:35:20 flam /netbsd: wd0: (id not found) Apr 24 04:35:20 flam
> /netbsd: wd0g: error reading fsbn 237235392 of 237235392-237235455
> (wd0 bn 268435455; cn 266305 tn 0 sn 15)wd0: (id not found) Apr 24
> 04:35:20 flam /netbsd: wd0: (id not found) Apr 24 04:35:21 flam
> /netbsd: wd0: (id not found) Apr 24 04:35:21 flam /netbsd: wd0: (id
> not found) Apr 24 04:35:22 flam /netbsd: wd0: (id not found)
> 
> can this error be related to discussed quirk?

yip, exactly. maybe urban didn't run into it because he did not cross
the magic boundary, or his drive(s) is really not affected.

btw: weird html stuff :D