Perhaps a bit off-topic (I asked on the rescue list -- http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OaDWVGdLhxWVWIEabz4F -- and was told to try here), but I am kinda shooting in the dark: I have been finding online scattered and vague info stating that this card can be made to work with a sparc solaris 10 box (http://old.nabble.com/eSATA-or-firewire-in-Solaris-Sparc-system-td27150246.html is the only link I can offer right now). Can anyone confirm or deny that?
Mauricio Tavares wrote:> Perhaps a bit off-topic (I asked on the rescue list -- > http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OaDWVGdLhxWVWIEabz4F -- and was > told to try here), but I am kinda shooting in the dark: I have been > finding online scattered and vague info stating that this card can be > made to work with a sparc solaris 10 box > (http://old.nabble.com/eSATA-or-firewire-in-Solaris-Sparc-system-td27150246.html > is the only link I can offer right now). Can anyone confirm or deny that?3112/3114 was a very early (possibly the first?) SATA chipset, I think aimed for use before SATA drivers had been developed. I would suggest looking for something more modern. -- Andrew Gabriel
On 02/23/2011 08:29 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:> Mauricio Tavares wrote: >> Perhaps a bit off-topic (I asked on the rescue list -- >> http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OaDWVGdLhxWVWIEabz4F -- and was >> told to try here), but I am kinda shooting in the dark: I have been >> finding online scattered and vague info stating that this card can be >> made to work with a sparc solaris 10 box >> (http://old.nabble.com/eSATA-or-firewire-in-Solaris-Sparc-system-td27150246.html >> is the only link I can offer right now). Can anyone confirm or deny that? > > 3112/3114 was a very early (possibly the first?) SATA chipset, I think > aimed for use before SATA drivers had been developed. I would suggest > looking for something more modern. >I see what you mean; in http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2008-September/043024.html they claim it is supported by the uata driver. What would you suggest instead? Also, since I have the card already, how about if I try it out?
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel at gmail.com> wrote:> ? ? ? ?I see what you mean; in > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2008-September/043024.html > they claim it is supported by the uata driver. What would you suggest > instead? Also, since I have the card already, how about if I try it out?My experience with SPARC is limited, but perhaps the Option ROM/BIOS for that card is intended for x86, and not SPARC? I might thinking of another controller, but this could be the case. You could always try to boot with the card; the worst that''ll probably happen is boot hangs before the OS even comes into play. -- --khd
Krunal Desai wrote:> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I see what you mean; in >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2008-September/043024.html >> they claim it is supported by the uata driver. What would you suggest >> instead? Also, since I have the card already, how about if I try it out? >> > > My experience with SPARC is limited, but perhaps the Option ROM/BIOS > for that card is intended for x86, and not SPARC? I might thinking of > another controller, but this could be the case. You could always try > to boot with the card; the worst that''ll probably happen is boot hangs > before the OS even comes into play. >SPARC won''t try to run the BIOS on the card anyway (it will only run OpenFirmware BIOS), but you will have to make sure the card has the non-RAID BIOS so that the PCI class doesn''t claim it to be a RAID controller, which will prevent Solaris going anywhere near the card at all. These cards could be bought with either RAID or non-RAID BIOS, but RAID was more common. You can (or could some time back) download the RAID and non-RAID BIOS from Silicon Image and re-flash which also updates the PCI class, and I think you''ll need a Windows system to actually flash the BIOS. You might want to do a google search on "3114 data corruption" too, although it never hit me back when I used the cards. -- Andrew Gabriel
That card works on OI-148 x86 if its SATA mode (tested it myself, RAID does not), which should also work on the SPARC version of the OS (common driver). Would mean upgrading to OpenIndiana and using the in development SPARC SKU but if you''re adventurous and nothing else works... Bye, Deano -----Original Message----- From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Mauricio Tavares Sent: 23 February 2011 13:18 To: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] SIL3114 and sparc solaris 10 Perhaps a bit off-topic (I asked on the rescue list -- http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OaDWVGdLhxWVWIEabz4F -- and was told to try here), but I am kinda shooting in the dark: I have been finding online scattered and vague info stating that this card can be made to work with a sparc solaris 10 box (http://old.nabble.com/eSATA-or-firewire-in-Solaris-Sparc-system-td27150246. html is the only link I can offer right now). Can anyone confirm or deny that? _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Wed, Feb 23 at 13:29, Andrew Gabriel wrote:>Mauricio Tavares wrote: >>Perhaps a bit off-topic (I asked on the rescue list -- >>http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OaDWVGdLhxWVWIEabz4F -- and >>was told to try here), but I am kinda shooting in the dark: I have >>been finding online scattered and vague info stating that this card >>can be made to work with a sparc solaris 10 box (http://old.nabble.com/eSATA-or-firewire-in-Solaris-Sparc-system-td27150246.html >>is the only link I can offer right now). Can anyone confirm or deny >>that? > >3112/3114 was a very early (possibly the first?) SATA chipset, I >think aimed for use before SATA drivers had been developed. I would >suggest looking for something more modern.Not only that, the 3112 would do non-sector-aligned FIS transfers for writes > 15 sectors, which caused all sorts of trouble for the firmware developers at the disk companies, resulting in numerous reports of compatibility and performance problems with 3112/3114 hardware. I +1 the suggestion to find something more modern if at all possible. --eric -- Eric D. Mudama edmudama at bounceswoosh.org
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Eric D. Mudama <edmudama at bounceswoosh.org> wrote:> On Wed, Feb 23 at 13:29, Andrew Gabriel wrote: >> >> Mauricio Tavares wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps a bit off-topic (I asked on the rescue list -- >>> http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OaDWVGdLhxWVWIEabz4F -- and was told >>> to try here), but I am kinda shooting in the dark: I have been finding >>> online scattered and vague info stating that this card can be made to work >>> with a sparc solaris 10 box >>> (http://old.nabble.com/eSATA-or-firewire-in-Solaris-Sparc-system-td27150246.html >>> is the only link I can offer right now). Can anyone confirm or deny that? >> >> 3112/3114 was a very early (possibly the first?) SATA chipset, I think >> aimed for use before SATA drivers had been developed. I would suggest >> looking for something more modern. > > Not only that, the 3112 would do non-sector-aligned FIS transfers for > writes > 15 sectors, which caused all sorts of trouble for the > firmware developers at the disk companies, resulting in numerous > reports of compatibility and performance problems with 3112/3114 > hardware. > > I +1 the suggestion to find something more modern if at all possible. >Oh, just lovely. What would you suggest instead? I mean, besides canning the machine altogether ;)> --eric > > -- > Eric D. Mudama > edmudama at bounceswoosh.org > >
On Wed, Feb 23 at 13:16, Mauricio Tavares wrote:>On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Eric D. Mudama ><edmudama at bounceswoosh.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 23 at 13:29, Andrew Gabriel wrote: >>> >>> Mauricio Tavares wrote: >>>> >>>> Perhaps a bit off-topic (I asked on the rescue list -- >>>> http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OaDWVGdLhxWVWIEabz4F -- and was told >>>> to try here), but I am kinda shooting in the dark: I have been finding >>>> online scattered and vague info stating that this card can be made to work >>>> with a sparc solaris 10 box >>>> (http://old.nabble.com/eSATA-or-firewire-in-Solaris-Sparc-system-td27150246.html >>>> is the only link I can offer right now). Can anyone confirm or deny that? >>> >>> 3112/3114 was a very early (possibly the first?) SATA chipset, I think >>> aimed for use before SATA drivers had been developed. I would suggest >>> looking for something more modern. >> >> Not only that, the 3112 would do non-sector-aligned FIS transfers for >> writes > 15 sectors, which caused all sorts of trouble for the >> firmware developers at the disk companies, resulting in numerous >> reports of compatibility and performance problems with 3112/3114 >> hardware. >> >> I +1 the suggestion to find something more modern if at all possible. >> > Oh, just lovely. What would you suggest instead? I mean, besides >canning the machine altogether ;)Since SAS adapters can talk to SATA disks, I''d just use a compatible SAS adapter. It''ll cost a few hundred dollars, but likely save you a lot of effort and frustration. There are a number of vendors of PCI, PCI-X and PCI-e SAS adapters for SPARC hardware, based on a quick google. --eric -- Eric D. Mudama edmudama at bounceswoosh.org
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:16 -0500, Mauricio Tavares wrote:> hardware. > > > > I +1 the suggestion to find something more modern if at all possible. > > > Oh, just lovely. What would you suggest instead? I mean, besides > canning the machine altogether ;)LSI have some adapters than can do both SAS and SATA, and would probably get the job done. But, I''ll point out that you''re talking about S10... perhaps you should ask *Oracle* ? - Garrett
I need a PCI (not -e or -X) SAS adapter for use in an older SPARC system. Can you suggest a PCI SAS hba? Jerry On 02/23/11 12:24, Eric D. Mudama wrote:> > There are a number of vendors of PCI, PCI-X and PCI-e SAS adapters for > SPARC hardware, based on a quick google.
I can confirm that on *at least* 4 different cards - from different board OEMs - I have seen single bit ZFS checksum errors that went away immediately after removing the 3114 based card. I stepped up to the 3124 (pci-x up to 133mhz) and 3132 (pci-e) and have never looked back. I now throw any 3114 card I find into the bin at the first available opportunity as they are a pile of doom waiting to insert an exploding garden gnome into the unsuspecting chest cavity of your data. I''d also add that I have never made an effort to determine if it was actually the Solaris driver that was at fault - but being that the other two cards I have mentioned are available for about $20 a pop, it''s not worth my time. I don''t recall if Solaris 10 (Sparc or X86) actually has the si3124 driver, but if it does, for a cheap thrill, they are worth a bash. I have no problems pushing 4 disks pretty much flat out on a PCI-X 133 3124 based card. (note that there was a pci and a pci-x version of the 3124, so watch out.) Cheers! Nathan. On 02/24/11 02:10 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:> Krunal Desai wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Mauricio Tavares >> <raubvogel at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I see what you mean; in >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2008-September/043024.html >>> >>> they claim it is supported by the uata driver. What would you suggest >>> instead? Also, since I have the card already, how about if I try it >>> out? >> >> My experience with SPARC is limited, but perhaps the Option ROM/BIOS >> for that card is intended for x86, and not SPARC? I might thinking of >> another controller, but this could be the case. You could always try >> to boot with the card; the worst that''ll probably happen is boot hangs >> before the OS even comes into play. > > SPARC won''t try to run the BIOS on the card anyway (it will only run > OpenFirmware BIOS), but you will have to make sure the card has the > non-RAID BIOS so that the PCI class doesn''t claim it to be a RAID > controller, which will prevent Solaris going anywhere near the card at > all. These cards could be bought with either RAID or non-RAID BIOS, > but RAID was more common. You can (or could some time back) download > the RAID and non-RAID BIOS from Silicon Image and re-flash which also > updates the PCI class, and I think you''ll need a Windows system to > actually flash the BIOS. > > You might want to do a google search on "3114 data corruption" too, > although it never hit me back when I used the cards. >
On Fri, Feb 25 at 22:29, Nathan Kroenert wrote:>I don''t recall if Solaris 10 (Sparc or X86) actually has the si3124 >driver, but if it does, for a cheap thrill, they are worth a bash. I >have no problems pushing 4 disks pretty much flat out on a PCI-X 133 >3124 based card. (note that there was a pci and a pci-x version of >the 3124, so watch out.)Most 3124 I''ve seen are PCI-X natively, but they work fine in PCI slots, albiet with less bandwidth available. --eric -- Eric D. Mudama edmudama at bounceswoosh.org
nathan at tuneunix.com said:> I can confirm that on *at least* 4 different cards - from different board > OEMs - I have seen single bit ZFS checksum errors that went away immediately > after removing the 3114 based card. > > I stepped up to the 3124 (pci-x up to 133mhz) and 3132 (pci-e) and have > never looked back. > > I now throw any 3114 card I find into the bin at the first available > opportunity as they are a pile of doom waiting to insert an exploding garden > gnome into the unsuspecting chest cavity of your data.Maybe I''ve just been lucky. I have a 3114 card configured with two ports internal and two external (E-SATA). There is a ZFS pool configured as a mirror of a 1TB drive on the E-SATA port in an external dock, and a 1TB drive on a motherboard SATA port. It''s been running like this for a couple of years, with weekly scrubs, and has so far had no errors. The system is a 32-bit x86 running Solaris-10U6. My 3114 card came with RAID firmware, and I re-flashed it to non-RAID, as others have mentioned. Regards, Marion