August 17, 201312 yr I have searched the forums and not seen these specific errors: I have been seeing these errors in my syslog recently. I have new SATA cables on order (wanted to get locking cables anyway), but I am worried incase it is an indication of a HDD problem: Aug 17 18:05:31 Tower emhttp_event: svcs_restarted Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata1.00: failed command: WRITE DMA Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata1.00: cmd ca/00:08:c0:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e0 tag 0 dma 4096 out Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: res 40/00:00:01:4f:c2/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout) Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata1.00: status: { DRDY } Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata1: hard resetting link Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata1: nv: skipping hardreset on occupied port Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata2.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata2.00: failed command: WRITE DMA Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata2.00: cmd ca/00:08:c0:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e0 tag 0 dma 4096 out Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: res 40/00:00:01:4f:c2/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout) Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata2.00: status: { DRDY } Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata2: hard resetting link Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata2: nv: skipping hardreset on occupied port Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Aug 17 18:07:13 Tower kernel: ata1: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Aug 17 18:07:14 Tower kernel: ata2.00: n_sectors mismatch 5860533168 != 1 Aug 17 18:07:14 Tower kernel: ata2.00: old n_sectors matches native, probably late HPA lock, will try to unlock HPA Aug 17 18:07:14 Tower kernel: ata2.00: revalidation failed (errno=-5) Aug 17 18:07:18 Tower kernel: ata2: hard resetting link Aug 17 18:07:18 Tower kernel: ata2: nv: skipping hardreset on occupied port Aug 17 18:07:19 Tower kernel: ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133 Aug 17 18:07:19 Tower kernel: ata1: EH complete Aug 17 18:07:19 Tower kernel: ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Aug 17 18:07:19 Tower kernel: ata2.00: failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed, err_mask=0x80) Aug 17 18:07:19 Tower kernel: ata2.00: revalidation failed (errno=-5) Aug 17 18:07:19 Tower kernel: ata2: limiting SATA link speed to 1.5 Gbps Aug 17 18:07:24 Tower kernel: ata2: hard resetting link Aug 17 18:07:24 Tower kernel: ata2: nv: skipping hardreset on occupied port Aug 17 18:07:24 Tower kernel: ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Aug 17 18:07:25 Tower kernel: ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133 Aug 17 18:07:25 Tower kernel: ata2: EH complete Any info would be greatly appreciated!! Regards, The Capt.
August 19, 201312 yr Author Check for BIOS updates for MB and SATA card. My MB Bios is up to date, and I have no PCI/PCIe SATA cards, the drives are connected directly to the MB. I am out of the house at the moment, but I will post a full syslog laster to see if that gives any indications. P.S. All 3 drives pass SMART test. Regards, The Capt.
August 19, 201312 yr Author My full syslog from boot: http://pastebin.com/Nmbz1Ybi Still some potiential ata1 and ata2 errors at the bottom; Is this anything to be worried about?! Thanks again for any help! Regard, The Capt.
August 20, 201312 yr The first drive briefly loses contact about 7 minutes and 18 minutes after booting, the second drive loses contact about 33 minutes after boot. These lapses are serious but brief, and both drives are recovered in time, and the write operations are retried, with no further issues apparent. But this syslog is short, you will have to determine if these glitches continue to happen, and cause any trouble. No idea why the drives were too busy to respond, but it should be monitored, there may be troublesome sectors it's trying to work around.
August 20, 201312 yr Author Post SMART reports. See attached, results of SMART test on all 3 drives. Thanks for help! The Capt. SMART_results.txt
August 20, 201312 yr The drives look fine. I should add to the previous reply that there are no indications of cable issues.
August 20, 201312 yr Author Would i get any benefit from any of the uRAID "Boot Codes"? http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php/Boot_Codes Or is that overkill? The. Capt
August 20, 201312 yr It's remotely possible, but there is probably no one that can tell you that for sure, apart from your testing them yourself. My board uses nForce chipsets, which are a progenitor of the chips on your board, and at one time, I required NOAPIC and SWNCQ=0. Later UnRAID releases with updated kernels removed the need for them, and I suspect the same is true for you. There are many more codes than on that wiki page, and you are welcome to try them all, but I would only try them one at a time, and see if it boots correctly and UnRAID appears to be working correctly. It is likely though that if you do find one that improves operation (fewer drive issues), you may also have slightly lower performance.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.