[9fans] Shiva/Guru Plug Support
Hello, I found the annoucement for Shiva plug support (http://marc.info/?l=9fansm=125849399830547w=2) and I was wondering what progress has been made with the port. I looked in /sys/src/9/kw and it looks like there has been more recent development, but could someone give me a quick summary of what has been accomplished. Also, would this port work on the GuruPlug Server (http://marc.info/?l=9fansm=125849399830547w=2)? I looks like it has almost the exact same hardware as the Shiva. I'd just like to know the port status before I purchase one for use with Plan9. Thanks. -- Burton Samograd
Re: [9fans] Shiva/Guru Plug Support
i have several (guru and sheeva) running plan9. they're configured as cpu's and boot from a file server (x86 laptop auth+cpu+fs). i've had the most problems with power supplies on both models; going by my sample size, they have a 25% combined failure rate. -Skip On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Burton Samograd burton.samog...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I found the annoucement for Shiva plug support (http://marc.info/?l=9fansm=125849399830547w=2) and I was wondering what progress has been made with the port. I looked in /sys/src/9/kw and it looks like there has been more recent development, but could someone give me a quick summary of what has been accomplished. Also, would this port work on the GuruPlug Server (http://marc.info/?l=9fansm=125849399830547w=2)? I looks like it has almost the exact same hardware as the Shiva. I'd just like to know the port status before I purchase one for use with Plan9. Thanks. -- Burton Samograd
Re: [9fans] Shiva/Guru Plug Support
On May 13, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote: i have several (guru and sheeva) running plan9. they're configured as cpu's and boot from a file server (x86 laptop auth+cpu+fs). i've had the most problems with power supplies on both models; going by my sample size, they have a 25% combined failure rate. -Skip I have noticed this too on my sheeva. I ended up rolling my own on it. It seems to get to hot when running Plan 9. I don't have this issue with the default configuration though. -- Veety
[9fans] 'no fat' - boot failure
Hello
I just installed 9front onto the second partition of my main SSD drive
and when I boot
using grub with 'chainloader +1' I get a PBS check which looks to pass
and then the
message 'no fat'. I am thinking that my installation might be out of
sector range on the
drive; I installed on the second primary partition after a 50ish gig
first parition. Does that
sound like it's my problem? If not, any other ideas?
Here's what's in my grub.cfg which I got from another posting on 9fans:
menuentry Plan9 (9front) {
insmod chain
insmod fat16
set root=(hd0,msdos2)
chainloader +1
}
I got the (hd0,msdos2) from using the grub command line completion.
I've never seen that
format before so I'm thinking it's new, but then again I haven't
played with grub for a while.
--
Burton Samograd
Re: [9fans] 'no fat' - boot failure
the pbs managed to load 9bootfat but 9bootfat wasnt able to find the fat partition it came from. we pass 32bit lba's to the bios read sector routines, so theres nothing inside 9boot itself that would prevent this from working i think. 9bootfat does its search by walking all partition table entries (primary and secondary) on the bootdrive that are marked as active. maybe you'r missing some grub command to mark the particular plan9 partition as active before chainloading? -- cinap
Re: [9fans] 'no fat' - boot failure
9bootfat does its search by walking all partition table entries (primary and secondary) on the bootdrive that are marked as active. Reading the grub docs, it sounds like an active partition is marked bootable and only one partition can be marked that way. Currently my linux partition is marked bootable but I'm not sure if it needs to be since grub is installed in the MBR. Any thoughts? I might just try to set my plan9 partition bootable and see what happens; I'm sure i can fix things if I can't boot later. -- Burton Samograd
Re: [9fans] 'no fat' - boot failure
Toggling the bootable flag on the plan9 partition did allow it to start booting. It then looked to be iterating over the drives, where on my harddisks I got: sdE0 disk name/id bad disk bad disk bad disk bad disk bad disk sdE5 disk name/id bad disk bad disk bad disk bad disk bad disk This happened for both of my SATA hard drives, the DVD got through this stage fine. It appeared to be reading the disks completely; my SSD took about a minute to get before it went to the next drive which was 2T and I didn't bother waiting around longer than 5 minutes to see if it would complete. I've had nothing but problems with this hardware anyways so I'm not surprised that plan9 has a hard time working on it. I might try it on this hardware again, but I've got another system coming soon anyways that I'm pretty sure will work just fine. I tried 9front because the standard distro had a problem with my disks, or at least finding the boot partition/floppy on the cd. 9front would boot fine as a live/install cd so I thought I was in the clear but unfortunately not. -- Burton Samograd On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Burton Samograd burton.samog...@gmail.com wrote: 9bootfat does its search by walking all partition table entries (primary and secondary) on the bootdrive that are marked as active. Reading the grub docs, it sounds like an active partition is marked bootable and only one partition can be marked that way. Currently my linux partition is marked bootable but I'm not sure if it needs to be since grub is installed in the MBR. Any thoughts? I might just try to set my plan9 partition bootable and see what happens; I'm sure i can fix things if I can't boot later. -- Burton Samograd
Re: [9fans] 'no fat' - boot failure
On Sun May 13 21:20:40 EDT 2012, burton.samog...@gmail.com wrote: Toggling the bootable flag on the plan9 partition did allow it to start booting. It then looked to be iterating over the drives, where on my harddisks I got: sdE0 disk name/id bad disk bad disk bad disk bad disk bad disk i'm not sure of the lineage of the 9front driver, or what hardware you're using. this sort of sounds like a hardware funny (which may be already fixed) or puis (power-up in standby). the output of the pci command, or lspci on linux would be helpful. if you could also get the output of cat /dev/sdE5/ctl that would be good as well. - erik
Re: [9fans] 'no fat' - boot failure
Attached is the output of lspci. I'll see if I can get it to fully boot to get the output of the other command. -- Burton On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 8:56 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote: On Sun May 13 21:20:40 EDT 2012, burton.samog...@gmail.com wrote: Toggling the bootable flag on the plan9 partition did allow it to start booting. It then looked to be iterating over the drives, where on my harddisks I got: sdE0 disk name/id bad disk bad disk bad disk bad disk bad disk i'm not sure of the lineage of the 9front driver, or what hardware you're using. this sort of sounds like a hardware funny (which may be already fixed) or puis (power-up in standby). the output of the pci command, or lspci on linux would be helpful. if you could also get the output of cat /dev/sdE5/ctl that would be good as well. - erik 00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 82G33/G31/P35/P31 Express DRAM Controller (rev 02) 00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82G33/G31/P35/P31 Express PCI Express Root Port (rev 02) 00:03.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 82G33/G31/P35/P31 Express MEI Controller (rev 02) 00:19.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82566DC-2 Gigabit Network Connection (rev 02) 00:1a.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB UHCI Controller #4 (rev 02) 00:1a.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB UHCI Controller #5 (rev 02) 00:1a.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB UHCI Controller #6 (rev 02) 00:1a.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller #2 (rev 02) 00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) HD Audio Controller (rev 02) 00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 02) 00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) PCI Express Port 2 (rev 02) 00:1c.2 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) PCI Express Port 3 (rev 02) 00:1c.3 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) PCI Express Port 4 (rev 02) 00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) PCI Express Port 5 (rev 02) 00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB UHCI Controller #1 (rev 02) 00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB UHCI Controller #2 (rev 02) 00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB UHCI Controller #3 (rev 02) 00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller #1 (rev 02) 00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev 92) 00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801IH (ICH9DH) LPC Interface Controller (rev 02) 00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 82801IR/IO/IH (ICH9R/DO/DH) 6 port SATA AHCI Controller (rev 02) 00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) SMBus Controller (rev 02) 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation GT218 [GeForce 210] (rev a2) 01:00.1 Audio device: nVidia Corporation High Definition Audio Controller (rev a1) 03:00.0 IDE interface: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88SE6101/6102 single-port PATA133 interface (rev b1)
Re: [9fans] 'no fat' - boot failure
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 82801IR/IO/IH (ICH9R/DO/DH) 6 port SATA AHCI Controller (rev 02) 03:00.0 IDE interface: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88SE6101/6102 single-port PATA133 interface (rev b1) i assume that you're attached to 00:1f:2, the sata controller due to the message. this controller is close to the one i originally built the ahci driver on, so i doubt that you're hitting a serious controller problem right off the bat. i'm going to guess that you have a puis-enabled drive and assume this isn't an irq issue. it could be that, but that's a lower probability. earlier versions of the ahci driver didn't support puis because puis wasn't around back then. among its anti-social features, puis allows the return of identify device to be incomplete, requiring one know the magic interoccular tap to rise said drive out of its slumber. it might be that you can jumper your drive so it doesn't puis. read the manual. if you don't know, send along the model / serial #, and it's not too hard to look up. - erik
Re: [9fans] 5i floating point?
On Wed, 9 May 2012 12:36:06 -0400 erik quanstrom quans...@labs.coraid.com wrote: On Wed May 9 10:38:21 EDT 2012, cinap_len...@gmx.de wrote: aiju wrote an arm emulator for 9front some time ago and i remember he implemented floating point on it. why was it done this way rather than extending 5i? my memory of the irc discussion over it is vague now, but i think 5e is substantially different. patching 5i was considered, but i think it was found wanting in more areas than just floating point.
Re: [9fans] 'no fat' - boot failure
On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:22:02 -0600 Burton Samograd burton.samog...@gmail.com wrote: 9bootfat does its search by walking all partition table entries (primary and secondary) on the bootdrive that are marked as active. Reading the grub docs, it sounds like an active partition is marked bootable and only one partition can be marked that way. Currently my linux partition is marked bootable but I'm not sure if it needs to be since grub is installed in the MBR. Any thoughts? I might just try to set my plan9 partition bootable and see what happens; I'm sure i can fix things if I can't boot later. The active flag is quite irrelevant to Linux. I'm surprised 9bootfat uses it.
