SATA II causes system freeze
gartim at gmail.com
Wed Nov 12 04:16:20 UTC 2014
I had a similar situation of freezing system but I had errors on cpu
stalls. the drives were 2/20T raids using adaptec 5805 cards. Did similarly
- swapping mb, cpu, mem, psu - nothing worked. Switched from btrfs to xfs.
Stayed up but stalled. Then I found a post about not using cfq on 5805
drive. Switched to noop and everything works. No hair left.
On Oct 19, 2014 12:12 PM, "David A. De Graaf" <dad at datix.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:19:55PM -0400, David A. De Graaf wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:01:30AM +0930, Tim wrote:
> > > Allegedly, on or about 02 October 2014, Chris Murphy sent:
> > > > Cables are often the source of weird problems. Specifically it's the
> > > > connectors that are flakey, not the cable portion itself.
> > >
> > > Though, if you savagely bend SATA leads, the way some of them are
> > > supplied in a flattened up zig-zag style, with a rubber band around
> > > them, you can mess up the data transmission.
> > >
> > Some quick feedback: It's now apparent that the cables or SATA
> > sockets have nothing to do with my problem. The finger of guilt
> > now seems to point to the RAM sticks. However, experiments are
> > slow. More later.
> After weeks of experimentation it's clear that my machine crashes have
> nothing to do with the SATA connections or the harddrives.
> They are caused by a too-small swap space!
> Zero is OK; large is OK; but small is NG.
> For reasons I can't recall, the system is set up with only a 2 GB swap
> partition, and for a long while it had a single 4 GB RAM memory stick.
> This was OK.
> Then I added a second 4 GB memory stick, identical to the first.
> With 8 GB RAM and 2 GB swap the system crashed - froze - after a
> random few hours.
> This was maddening. Not knowing the real cause, I bought a different
> motherboard, changed power supply, tried different SATA and ATA
> connections, changed the SATA cable, removed the extra data drive,
> removed the ATA CD drive, used one or the other RAM stick,
> everything and ran with only a Live F20 Xfce USB stick. I ran
> for days without error. The only thing that worked was to revert to
> only a single memory stick - 4 GB. Either stick was OK.
> I put everything back together, using an ATA/SATA converter for the
> 350 GB primary disk, the SATA 1TB data harddrive, and the ATA CD.
> Then I noticed the size of the swap partition was 2 GB and, having
> nothing else to try, added an 8 GB swap file.
> Eureka! It ran.
> I have a matrix of test cases which I won't bore you with.
> They can be summarized as follows:
> 1 - with 4 GB RAM, either 0 or 2 GB swap space is OK.
> 2 - with 8 GB RAM, 0 swap space is OK.
> 3 - with 8 GB RAM, 2 GB swap space will reliably freeze the system
> 4 - with 8 GB RAM, 4 GB swap file is OK.
> 5 - with 8 GB RAM, 2 GB swap partition + 8 GB swap file is OK,
> even if the priority of the smaller one is forced higher.
> At no time during these experiments was swap space actually used
> according to the gkrellm display; the RAM usage remained well
> below what was available.
> This is clearly a bug. No rational design would work like this.
> Is it a kernel bug? Some other component?
> Which one gets the Bugzilla?
> David A. De Graaf DATIX, Inc. Hendersonville, NC
> dad at datix.us www.datix.us
> "Documentation written in "jargon" may as well not have been written."
> - Mike Watson
> users mailing list
> users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the users