On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:37:54PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:56:02PM -0500, George Georgalis wrote:
>> I seem to have come across a quirk for Maxtor SATA drives:
>
>Could you try the attached patch against current ? This should fix the
>issue for the most common cases, and hopefully it won't break any working
>setups.

>Index: wd.c
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/dev/ata/wd.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.337
>diff -u -r1.337 wd.c
>--- wd.c	4 Mar 2007 06:01:44 -0000	1.337
>+++ wd.c	7 Mar 2007 21:35:03 -0000

seems to work perfect with current from this morning.

dd if=/dev/rwd1d of=/dev/null skip=268435456 count=1 bs=1b 
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
512 bytes transferred in 0.006 secs (85333 bytes/sec)

I did get an odd error, but I don't think it has anything to do
with the patch.  ...I don't understand why I cannot specify bs=2b

rock# dd if=/dev/rwd1d of=/dev/null skip=268435456 count=1 bs=2b 
dd: /dev/rwd1d: Invalid argument
0+0 records in
0+0 records out
0 bytes transferred in 0.010 secs (0 bytes/sec)
rock# dd if=/dev/rwd1d of=/dev/null skip=268435456 count=2 bs=1b 
2+0 records in
2+0 records out
1024 bytes transferred in 0.009 secs (113777 bytes/sec)

I did some other dd on the disk with no problems, but unfortunately
I won't have time to dd the whole disk or any benchmarks, need to
return it.

Thanks for the patch. per this thread, the only problem I see
is big drives may need a jumper to clamp them to 128Gb when
controllers don't support LBA48.  But wouldn't that be necessary
even without the patch?

Given all the changes to wd.c (3.1 to current), is the patch a
candidate for pullup?  In any event the closest I can come to
beating up the drive makers is by returning the drive...

Cheers,
// George


-- 
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator <IXOYE><