Re: RAID under 2.2.10
John E. Adams wrote:
>
> >> Tom Livingston wrote:
> >>
> >>> As others have pointed out recently on this list, you can get raid working
> >>> with a 2.2.10 kernel. Ingo posted a fix, which involves changing just one
> >>> line.
> >>
> >> I wrote:
> >> The fix is only one line, BUT that one line occurs TWICE. Change both
> >> occurrences of 'current->priority = 0' to 'current->priority = 1'
> >> in /usr/src/linux/drivers/block/md.c. Ideally, that constant should
> >> have a symbolic name like LOWEST_PRIORITY.
> >>
> > Christopher E. Browne wrote:
> > So if I am distilling the correct data here, one patches 2.2.1
> > with the latest 2.2.6 raid patch, ignores the rejects, and cheges
> > those to lines and then has a working raid system?
> > Are there and issues with the AC patches?
>
> Mostly correct. The 2.2.6 patch fails against linux/include/linux/fs.h
> The following code, which is the failing piece, needs to be added to fs.h
>
> static inline int buffer_lowprio(struct buffer_head * bh)
> {
> return test_bit(BH_LowPrio, &bh->b_state);
> }
>
> I don't know about AC patches, I no longer apply them.
>
> johna
I'm wanting to use the latest kernel with raid patches and I'm new to
the mailing list... Is raid with 2.2.10 a matter of applying the 2.2.6
raid patches, and adding that code above? What are the "AC" patches?
Is the fix in the second paragraph above required?
What are good sites for raid info - can I find digests of this list
anywhere?
Thanks for your help.
--
Robert Stuart
Ph 61-7-3864 0364
[OFFTOPIC] RE: Smart Controller problems
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: I can't help you directly, but I'v a policy of staying away from Compaq hardware. They have a NASTY habit of being non-standard (since their very first machine, non-standard video). As a result, they always give trouble. The latest case is for upgrading laptop hard drives, It's not SCSI and it's NOT IDE, it compaq-IDE folks (different pin-out)! Drives exclusively available, from compaq, at schtup-you, prices! Then there is that problem of the on-motherboard NIC, that no one else has drivers for (if compaq doesn't support your OS then you're toast). uhmmm their NIC's are either Texas Instruments ThunderLan or (recently) Intel EEpro.. should work fine with the plain linux drivers. -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hibernia.clubi.ie PGP5 key: http://www.clubi.ie/jakma/publickey.txt --- Fortune: Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming
RE: Smart Controller problems
I can't help you directly, but I'v a policy of staying away from Compaq hardware. They have a NASTY habit of being non-standard (since their very first machine, non-standard video). As a result, they always give trouble. The latest case is for upgrading laptop hard drives, It's not SCSI and it's NOT IDE, it compaq-IDE folks (different pin-out)! Drives exclusively available, from compaq, at schtup-you, prices! Then there is that problem of the on-motherboard NIC, that no one else has drivers for (if compaq doesn't support your OS then you're toast). Compaq makes "compatibles" not "clones". It is the difference between androids and humans. Walk and talk the same, but under the skin's a different story. Talk to anyone who's ever cussed at compaq hardware. Sorry if this sounds like an anti-compaq rant, it isn't. Just a warning. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tomas SchonfeldtSent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 2:04 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Smart Controller problems Hi! I recently got my hands on a smart array pci controller and I'm wondering if I can use this in a non-compaq computer. I tried to plug it in my cumputer, but it isn't detected by the Compaq Array Config Utils... :( Neither does it show in the pci device listing. Is it broken or do I just need a compaq computer? I really want this card to worke since I got 7x2.1 Gb drives with it :) / Tomas
RE: support for adaptec's AAC-365 raid controller?
I thought, a while back, that Adaptec stated that they were going to support Linux at the driver level, like the other O/Ss that they support? Does anyone here recall that? What happened? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stanley, Jeremy > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 6:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: support for adaptec's AAC-365 raid controller? > > > Last I heard, there was still no Linux support for the new Adaptec U2 > RAID controllers. I don't know if they have released interface specs > yet, but if they have a driver will probably be forthcoming > (unless they > get the stick out of their intestines and code one them selves first). > The whole series may not be "top notch" but it certainly is priced > well... > -- >Jeremy StanleyTrend CMHS > I.S.Network Engineer http://www.trendcmhs.org > > The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily > represent those of Trend CMHS or Trend Foundation. > >"I program my homecomputer; beam myself into > the future." --Kraftwerk, 1981 > > > -- > > From: Raju K. V.[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 9:17 AM > > To: Linux Kernel; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject:support for adaptec's AAC-365 raid controller? > > > > hi all, > > > > Does linux support Adaptec's AAC-364 raid controller? If > so, where are > > the > > driver sources? > > > > Please CC me in your replies. > > > > Thanks and regards, > > Raju > > > > >
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
John E. Adams wrote/schrieb/scribsit: > > Christopher E. Browne wrote: > > So if I am distilling the correct data here, one patches 2.2.1 > > with the latest 2.2.6 raid patch, ignores the rejects, and cheges > > those to lines and then has a working raid system? Yes, that's how it works for me. > > Are there and issues with the AC patches? > > I don't know about AC patches, I no longer apply them. ac patches now have LVM built in. The raid-2.2.6 patch applied to 2.2.10ac4 (IIRC) no worse than to vanilla 2.2.10 and it compiled fine at least. I did not touch CONFIG_MD_LVM, though (neither of them). Stefan
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
>> Tom Livingston wrote:
>>
>>> As others have pointed out recently on this list, you can get raid working
>>> with a 2.2.10 kernel. Ingo posted a fix, which involves changing just one
>>> line.
>>
>> I wrote:
>> The fix is only one line, BUT that one line occurs TWICE. Change both
>> occurrences of 'current->priority = 0' to 'current->priority = 1'
>> in /usr/src/linux/drivers/block/md.c. Ideally, that constant should
>> have a symbolic name like LOWEST_PRIORITY.
>>
> Christopher E. Browne wrote:
> So if I am distilling the correct data here, one patches 2.2.1
> with the latest 2.2.6 raid patch, ignores the rejects, and cheges
> those to lines and then has a working raid system?
> Are there and issues with the AC patches?
Mostly correct. The 2.2.6 patch fails against linux/include/linux/fs.h
The following code, which is the failing piece, needs to be added to fs.h
static inline int buffer_lowprio(struct buffer_head * bh)
{
return test_bit(BH_LowPrio, &bh->b_state);
}
I don't know about AC patches, I no longer apply them.
johna
upgrading rh-5.0 to rh6.0+linux-2.2.10
hi ya... if anyone cares...or trying to do similar... my home server was/is rh-5.0 w/ linux-2.0.35 using mdadd/mdcreate tools... am using raid0 only... with rh-6.0: linux-2.2.6 w/ raid patches and rh-6.0 patches works for raid0/1/5 but does NOT work for old style superblock of rh-5.0 w/ mdadd/mdcreate compiling old raidtools-0.41 fails to compile under linux-2.2.6 --- linux-2.2.10 w/ old raidtools-0.41.tgz compiles and works with old raid0 drives --- thanx guys... have fun linuxing alvin http://www.linux-consulting.com/Raid/Docs
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, John E. Adams wrote: > Tom Livingston wrote: > > >As others have pointed out recently on this list, you can get raid working > >with a 2.2.10 kernel. Ingo posted a fix, which involves changing just one > >line. > > The fix is only one line, BUT that one line occurs TWICE. Change both > occurrences of 'current->priority = 0' to 'current->priority = 1' > in /usr/src/linux/drivers/block/md.c. Ideally, that constant should > have a symbolic name like LOWEST_PRIORITY. > > johna So if I am distilling the correct data here, one patches 2.2.1 with the latest 2.2.6 raid patch, ignores the rejects, and cheges those to lines and then has a working raid system? Are there and issues with the AC patches? First Law of System Requirements: "Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about..."
