Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!apollo!mrst!sdti!mjy
From: mjy@sdti.UUCP (Michael J. Young)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: uport drive bug?
Message-ID: <212@sdti.UUCP>
Date: 2 Mar 88 14:26:00 GMT
References: <4281@b-tech.UUCP> <505@wa3wbu.UUCP> <872@bigtex.UUCP> <1053@ssc.UUCP> <882@bigtex.UUCP>
Reply-To: mjy@sdti.UUCP (0000-Michael J. Young)
Organization: Software Development Technologies, Sudbury MA
Lines: 16

In article <882@bigtex.UUCP> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
>I also tried the combination of a 72meg Toshiba and the 33meg Rodime with no
>luck.  Remember, using any drive alone, even under heavy load, produces no
>problems.  It's only when *both* drives are used that failure is induced.  Not
>only that, but both drives must be under heavy load.  This is why I suspect
>either a design flaw in the controller (WD1003) or bug in uPort driver.

Actually, it isn't the amount of load on the drives, its the fact that the
system is trying to access BOTH drives simultaneously.  The easiest way to
get this to happen is to have multiple processes accessing the different
drives at the same time.  I used to get the errors a lot by generating a
lot of swapping activity (e.g., using pathalias) while doing a lot of
accesses to the drive that doesn't have the swap file.
-- 
Mike Young - Software Development Technologies, Inc., Sudbury MA 01776
UUCP     : {decvax,harvard,linus,mit-eddie}!necntc!necis!mrst!sdti!mjy
Internet : mjy%sdti.uucp@harvard.harvard.edu      Tel: +1 617 443 5779