This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] HVMAssist BIOS 32 GB Barrier

To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] HVMAssist BIOS 32 GB Barrier
From: Tomas Florian <tomas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:43:21 -0600
Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:43:50 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)

I'm trying to run a HVM guest with a hard drive > 33.8 GB and it says it works, but as soon as I start writing data to it I get hundreds of:

EXT3-fs error (device ide0(3,65)): ext3_new_block: Allocating block in system zone - block = 8257846

and after a few minutes the hard drive corrupts itself (even superblock lost) Looking at the qemu-dm.log file I can see that no matter what size of disk I use I get:

HVMAssist BIOS, 1 cpu, $Revision: 1.138 $ $Date: 2005/05/07 15:55:26 $
ata0-0: PCHS=5952/16/63 translation=lba LCHS=744/128/63
ata0 master: QEMU HARDDISK ATA-2 Hard-Disk (2929 MBytes)
*ata0-1: PCHS=16383/16/63 translation=lba LCHS=1024/255/63
ata0  slave: QEMU HARDDISK ATA-2 Hard-Disk (32120 MBytes)

This looks to me like the BIOS has some kind of a barrier on it. Is there a way to overcome this barrier? I'm using the xen0-3.0.1-4 package from FC5. Would an upgrade to the newest changeset help? And on a more general note? What will give me more stability (among all the unstable) ... a released rpm like the one from FC5 or the newest latest changeset from the unstable branch? Even the 3.0.1-4 rpm is from the unstable branch in the end ...right?

In the end I'll probably mount NFS and deal with the limit that way ... but it would be nice to do it properly

Thank you,

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>