PDA

View Full Version : Marvell 6gbps SATA raid controller with Fedora 13 x86_64 displays input/output error



bunnyboy3384
2nd July 2010, 11:26 PM
I have a machine with Gigabyte UD9 motherboard which has Marvell 88se91xx controller for SATA 6gbps and I have configure two 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX in raid0 with ACHI enabled.
The problem is that after some time after booting up and logging in, the filesystem is re-mounted as read only and I get "input/output error".
I thought it could be a hard disk problem (these are brand new HDDs by the way). So I ran WD diagnostic tool's extended testing in Windows 7 (which has not caused me any trouble yet) and the test came out successful. So I am almost sure the problem is not bad sector.
Does Fedora 13 have some problem with Marvell controllers?

Spec:
MB: Gigabyte UD9
Processor: Intel Core i7 980x
Memory: Ballistix Triple-channel kit 3x2GB
HDD: 2 x 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX

Thanks

SiliconSlick
2nd July 2010, 11:56 PM
My experience, and the general consensus, is avoid fake/BIOS-RAID on Linux. Maybe you can get it working, but if you do the only thing you've gained is the ability to dual-boot without changing the RAID setting in BIOS. It is still going to perform like (actually worse than) a software raid using mdadm. You can find the dmraid devel site and possibly see if that chipset is supported, but in the end, it still won't be any faster/better than mdadm (and in fact could be much worse... as you've seen). I tried to warn another of late here:

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=247953

where I (perhaps properly) was ignored. On FC13, though, if you don't see your controller listed in /usr/share/doc/dmraid-1.0.0.rc16/README , then I'd avoid the fake RAID like the plague. And even if it is listed, it probably is going to be more unreliable (and possibly slower) than software RAID.

SS (who knows he simply ran away from the Nvidia nForce RAID option given the problems and lack of ability to rebuild... and who sleeps better at night because of it)

bunnyboy3384
3rd July 2010, 01:22 AM
Well, Gigabyte UD9 uses Marvell 88se9128 raid controller which according to Marvell ("http://www.marvell.com/products/storage/storage_system_solutions/sata_controllers_pc_consumer/6_gbs_sata_raid_controller_88se91xx_product_brief. pdf") is a hardware raid controller. Besides, I could install Fedora on this RAID and Fedora sees only one hard disk. Unless I am misunderstanding something, doesn't this mean this is not a fake raid?

SiliconSlick
3rd July 2010, 02:25 AM
I'm not sure looking at the brief (and their web site). I see "Marvell RAID software=yes". I see "Port Multiplier Support" with the description "RAID support through Marvell RAID utility (MRU) _and_driver" (emphasis added), I see (on the product page for the 9128) "Embedded with hardware RAID controller, this product enables inbox driver support without additional driver installation.".

Is the MRU in the BIOS and available for configuration when you boot? Does it offer any options to clean up a RAID1 mirror (if you had one... I know you are doing RAID0/striping)?

Does "inbox driver support" mean they gave you a Windows driver CD you had to install to use RAID?

That's a nice motherboard with a fairly hefty price. That may well be a real hardware RAID given all the other goodies. If it has all the management it needs to manage a RAID array in BIOS, with no software/bootup needed, then I'd have to say, sorry for the distraction. I just haven't seen a consumer motherboard with real hardware RAID on it yet. Let us know what you find out.

SS

bunnyboy3384
3rd July 2010, 03:01 AM
There is a driver but I didn't need it for Windows to detect the striped HDDs. But I installed it anyways because I think I need it to view the HDDs in the RAID from Windows (Windows sees a single 2TB HDD) using the Windows version of MRU.

As for configuring RAID, it was setup from MRU in BIOS. For RAID1 you delete (or rebuild) the array through this MRU and not from within the OS.

So it is a safe bet that this is a hardware RAID. So my question is still open. Does Fedora have any problem with either hardware RAID (after all the chip came out only in Jan 2010) or sata III?

SiliconSlick
3rd July 2010, 04:03 AM
I looked at page 105-109 of your motherboard manual (http://download.gigabyte.us/FileList/Manual/mb_manual_ga-x58a-ud9_e.pdf), though, and didn't see anything about how to recover if a disk fails on RAID1. But further study indicates AHCI/fakeraid should still be somewhat usable on a dual-boot system. This is the bit I don't like though (a different distro but good info):

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installing_with_Fake_RAID#Booting_with_degraded_ar ray

A "real" RAID would let you recover without ever having to boot any OS.

Anyway... there's some good info on that page on dmraid that might help. I just know I gave up on my nforce chipset's fakeraid system (single-boot) when installing F10 or F11.

SS

bunnyboy3384
3rd July 2010, 08:38 AM
RAID rebuilding is on page 123 :-)

---------- Post added at 11:38 PM CDT ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM CDT ----------

I gave up and removed the RAID. But Fedora 13 still gave me the same trouble.
So, I installed CentOS 5.5 and voila! no more problems.
Guess there is some bug in FC13

crashbit
28th July 2010, 09:03 PM
RAID rebuilding is on page 123 :-)

---------- Post added at 11:38 PM CDT ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM CDT ----------

I gave up and removed the RAID. But Fedora 13 still gave me the same trouble.
So, I installed CentOS 5.5 and voila! no more problems.
Guess there is some bug in FC13

I have the same problem with Ubuntu Lucid Lynx and other distros same as fedora, archlinux.
All distros with 2.6.34 kernel ...

What kernel use CentOS 5.5 ?

My report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/550559

Evil-I
29th July 2010, 04:41 PM
Hi there,

During the fedora install did you go into the advanced disk setup section? Can't remember what exactly it was called but there's a standard option then one that mentions advanced and iScsi targets etc. My ICHR9 raid0 array wasn't shown in the standard one but was correctly identified in the advanced tab. Now my RAID0 array (which IS fake raid) is working fine in both f13 and windows 7.

Of course the one thing that annoys me about the fake raid haters on here is that yes, straight linux software RAID may be fractionaly quicker than fake raid, but then isn't readable by windows. I use both F13 and Windows 7 as there's some windows programmes I just can't do without, the Adobe suite being one of the biggies. I like to use RAID0 as there is a definite performance increase for a lot of what I do and yet is still want all my partitions and drives to be visible and accessible by both OS's. In my experience with my hardware its worked perfectly in fedora 13.

Of course you marvel controller may not be supported, but worth having a quick mooch in the advanced disk area just in case.

E-I

stevea
29th July 2010, 05:14 PM
Of course the one thing that annoys me about the fake raid haters on here is that yes, straight linux software RAID may be fractionaly quicker than fake raid, but then isn't readable by windows.

Is that more or less annoying that posters to a Linux forum who complain that something isn't Windows compatible ?

Actually there is often very little difference in speed wrt fakeraid vs mdadm software raid. mdadm has better reconstruction features when your RAID falls apart. It's also compatible across systems ... move your drives to another Linux box, and regardless of the controller vendor or the BIOS features you can go. Fakeraid is an inferior solution, but then again it does preserve that all precious compatibility.


I use both F13 and Windows 7 as there's some windows programmes I just can't do without, the Adobe suite being one of the biggies.

Oddly I've heard that Adobe has a complete suite for Linux, but it's not released. So if Adobe is the big issue why not run Win as a VM or adobe under Win ? It's better than the reboot fiasco.


yet is still want all my partitions and drives to be visible and accessible by both OS's.

So how are you accessing the F13 files systems from Windows ? IFS isn't well supported on the newer Win OSes.

hiberphoptik
10th January 2011, 08:38 PM
I have the same problem however I am not running a RAID setup at all

F14
2TB Marvel 6Gbps SATA drive in AHCI mode (any other mode the F14 installer would not see any drive at all)

in windows I can run all day and all night forever with no problems

in linux it could be an hour, or a day but eventually the drive is suddenly read only and I have to reboot using the power button since I cant issue any commands that would cause writing to the drive

I have google and found a few suggestions like adding stuff to grub and turning off write caching however nothing so far has made any difference. the hard disk utility that comes with Fedora 14 tells me the drive is ok and has no problems.

this is getting so old I have been using windows for almost 2 weeks now and I hate it but have to get work done :dis:

is this a kernel issue?

thhal
18th January 2011, 12:16 PM
I'm also using FC14 on an Intel x86_64 with the Marvell 9128, 6GB controller running in AHCI mode. I have no RAID enabled.

I have the same issue. Everything works fine for a while, and then suddenly the discs become read-only and the system freezes. I'm unable to detect any problems with the discs when running tests.

I'm not sure what to do next. To me, this seems to be a kernel driver problem of some sort.

hollovoid
21st February 2011, 02:19 AM
I am having issues with the marvell 9128 in Fedora 14, 64bit as well, except the drives on it are not detected at all, I am using the drives in windows (my windows install is on one of them) so I know the board is functioning.

hiberphoptik
21st February 2011, 05:11 AM
I am having issues with the marvell 9128 in Fedora 14, 64bit as well, except the drives on it are not detected at all, I am using the drives in windows (my windows install is on one of them) so I know the board is functioning.

in order to get the Fedora installer to see the drive you have to change the drives to AHCI mode in the BIOS, for some reason they are not detected otherwise

balrog74
23rd March 2011, 04:33 AM
Gents, RHEL 6 64 works fine on my Asus Rampage. Fedora 14 won't even see my Marvell 9128 array. Neither will 13 or 12. CenOS 5.5 saw it. This is a hardware raid, not like the Marvell 6000 series. Anyone here happen to know why RHEL which usually lags behind Fedora works and F14 doesn't? Or would anyone happen to know what to look for? I'm open to digging around.

stevea
23rd March 2011, 07:37 AM
Gents, RHEL 6 64 works fine on my Asus Rampage. Fedora 14 won't even see my Marvell 9128 array. Neither will 13 or 12. CenOS 5.5 saw it. This is a hardware raid, not like the Marvell 6000 series. Anyone here happen to know why RHEL which usually lags behind Fedora works and F14 doesn't? Or would anyone happen to know what to look for? I'm open to digging around.

Yes, I realize the hardware chip supports raid, but after scanning the vanilla kernel (2.6.38) core I am fairly certain that there is no standard kernel raid driver for the device. Maybe there is a proprietary driver.

The ahci driver should recognizes it.
Comments in the driver code lead me to believe that the marvell pata driver will also recognize handle the sata but you may need to use the parameter
ahci.marvell_enable=1
on the kernel line in /etc/grub/grub.conf.

*** that may not work except for the 88SE6xxx series, but it's worth a shot.


Can you identify the driver used under RHEL6 (use, "lspci -nnk", and lsmod both) ?

balrog74
23rd March 2011, 11:04 PM
Yes, I realize the hardware chip supports raid, but after scanning the vanilla kernel (2.6.38) core I am fairly certain that there is no standard kernel raid driver for the device. Maybe there is a proprietary driver.

The ahci driver should recognizes it.
Comments in the driver code lead me to believe that the marvell pata driver will also recognize handle the sata but you may need to use the parameter
ahci.marvell_enable=1
on the kernel line in /etc/grub/grub.conf.

*** that may not work except for the 88SE6xxx series, but it's worth a shot.


Can you identify the driver used under RHEL6 (use, "lspci -nnk", and lsmod both) ?

I did notice that last night now that you mention it... lspci -k on RHEL 6 shows ahci. Ahci isnt being started when I boot with F14 dvd. Just for sake of looking around, the F10 dvd booted and found it. F10 used ahci too... something different about F12,13,14.

I added the line to the boot menu you requested and F14 still didnt load the ahci driver. This is interesting because I have 4 other ahci drives attached to this board using the ICH10 chip, and lspci -k shows them using ahci.... ??? even though lsmod shows NO ahci loaded?

---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

I should be able to add that module from usb or something shouldn't I? insmod from f2 after booting to anaconda and NOT clicking next just yet? Best part is I fdisk -l, see my other disks that it says are using ahci, but try rmmod ahci and it says its not loaded? Is all this default non-module-part of the kernel-something or other? That doesn't make sense to me at all. I've used RHEL and RH for a long time.... I'm not an sw developer but never had to ask for help like this prior.

Flappjakk
4th July 2011, 10:37 PM
I also am having trouble, now with Fedora 15, installing to a "fake" raid on my ASUS P6X58D-E motherboard. I have Windows 7 Pro installed on a 32GB SSD and I have 2 Seagate 750GB HDDs in RAID 0 on the Marvell 88SE9128 6gbps controller. I would like to shrink the NTFS partition on the RAID 0 and install Fedora 15 x64 on the RAID 0. Fedora 15 does not recognize the drives on the RAID. Oddly enough CentOS 5.6 does. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to make Fedora recognize these drives. Please don't reply with "Don't use Fake raid with Linux, use mdadm instead" because I need coexistence with Windows.

Flappjakk
29th July 2011, 07:07 PM
Exactly the response I'd expect. Nothing. Ubuntu 11.04 installed and works fine. Maybe next time, Fedora.