SATA status report updated

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
to the hardware status report as well:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!

	Jeff

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:09:12 -0400
Jeff Garzik [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Jeff,

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Is any progress made on SMART support ?
I've been reading "SMART support will be integrated very soon"
for a very long time now .. :-)

Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!

Yup, thanks to you & them.  SATA has been working perfect in my system
since I started using it 10 months ago !

	greetings,
	Rob van Nieuwkerk

Rob van Nieuwkerk wrote:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:09:12 -0400
Jeff Garzik [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Jeff,

quoted

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Is any progress made on SMART support ?
I've been reading "SMART support will be integrated very soon"
for a very long time now .. :-)

True enough :/

It's been feature-complete for a while, but the reports from testers in 
the field have made me too nervous to push it into the upstream kernel.

I might push it upstream, but disable it by default, which would allow 
for a wider test audience.

	Jeff

Jeff Garzik [off-list ref] wrote:

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

I couldn't see any reference to system-wide power management (ie,
suspend/resume of machines with SATA interfaces) - is any work going on
in that area at the moment?

Thanks,
-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.linux-rutgers.kernel@srcf.ucam.org

On 08/12/05 01:09, Jeff Garzik wrote:

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
to the hardware status report as well:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!

Thank you Jeff!

*Incredibly* good work!

	Luben

On 08/12/05 01:09, Jeff Garzik wrote:

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
to the hardware status report as well:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

Thanks to all the hard-working SATA contributors!

Thank you Jeff!

*Incredibly* good work!

	Luben

On 08/12/05 01:09, Jeff Garzik wrote:

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

	http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

Good write up.  I like the simplicity of error handling.

Thumbs up!

	Luben

Jeff Garzik wrote:

True enough :/

It's been feature-complete for a while, but the reports from testers
in the field have made me too nervous to push it into the upstream
kernel.

I might push it upstream, but disable it by default, which would allow
for a wider test audience.

Could you specify what tests and reports would be useful and what risks
are involved?
Eg If I have 2 SATA drives then could (OK, of course it *could* - but is
it likely) I break sda whilst testing with sdb? I can live with crashes
and hangs and I can mitigate data loss, but I may think twice if it'll
toast the drive.

Nb: I often think that if people bemoaning the lack of testers put a bit
of effort into saying what tests would be useful then more people would
run them.
"Here run this and just say if it crashes" is one approach.
"Try these options, use smartd, turn on debugging like this and send
this part of the output if you have a problem. Previously reported
problems include: <blah, blah blah>. Oh, it's only ever going to affect
the drive you specify and the worst case scenario is a low-level format
using the vendor's download (which may or may not be available)" - makes
me more aware of what I'm getting into.

David

-- 

Jeff Garzik wrote:

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

    http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

 >> Queueing support, NCQ:
 >> #3 will be supported by libata, for all hardware and devices that
 >> support NCQ.

I guess this means libata support for HW-based NCQ.
It also could mean software/driver implemented NCQ, which could work on 
chipsets not supporting HW-NCQ in unison with a disk having NCQ?

Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
to the hardware status report as well:

    http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

How well does libata work with the newest ULi chipsets?
If not well, is there a possible timeframe?


(not on kernel list; if anyone there comments on ULi, pls. cc private)

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin

Jeff Garzik wrote:

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

    http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

 >> Queueing support, NCQ:
 >> #3 will be supported by libata, for all hardware and devices that
 >> support NCQ.

I guess this means libata support for HW-based NCQ.
It also could mean software/driver implemented NCQ, which could work on 
chipsets not supporting HW-NCQ in unison with a disk having NCQ?

Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
to the hardware status report as well:

    http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

How well does libata work with the newest ULi chipsets?
If not well, is there a possible timeframe?


(not on kernel list; if anyone there comments on ULi, pls. cc private)

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin

Matthew Garrett wrote:

Jeff Garzik [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

I couldn't see any reference to system-wide power management (ie,
suspend/resume of machines with SATA interfaces) - is any work going on
in that area at the moment?

Jens Axboe @ SuSE posted a patch that needs some work.  So, it's on the 
radar screen, but I haven't seen any new work recently.

	Jeff

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 17:30 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

Matthew Garrett wrote:

quoted

Jeff Garzik [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Things in SATA-land have been moving along recently, so I updated the 
software status report:

http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html

I couldn't see any reference to system-wide power management (ie,
suspend/resume of machines with SATA interfaces) - is any work going on
in that area at the moment?

Jens Axboe @ SuSE posted a patch that needs some work.  So, it's on the 
radar screen, but I haven't seen any new work recently.

Ah, the sata-suspend patch. Also very needed. Extensively used over here
on various kernels (2.6.11 and 2.6.12 versions), no problems, works like
a charm imho.

Mogens Valentin wrote:

Jeff, is it possible for you at this time to comment on support for the 
JMicron JMB360 sataII chip?  Possible timeframe?

Never heard of it.

	Jeff

Jeff Garzik wrote:

Although I have not updated it in several weeks, folks may wish to refer 
to the hardware status report as well:

    http://linux.yyz.us/sata/sata-status.html

Jeff, is it possible for you at this time to comment on support for the 
JMicron JMB360 sataII chip?  Possible timeframe?
It's starting to be used with the ULi M1695/M1567 chipset.

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin