Re: FAQ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Marc , On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Marc Mutz wrote: > Gregory Leblanc wrote: > > >2.4. How do I apply the patch to a kernel that I just downloaded from > >ftp.kernel.org? > >Put the downloaded kernel in /usr/src. Change to this directory, and > >move any directory called linux to something else. Then, type tar > >-Ixvf kernel-2.2.16.tar.bz2, replacing kernel-2.2.16.tar.bz2 with your > >kernel. Then cd to /usr/src/linux, and run patch -p1 < raid-2.2.16-A0. > >Then compile the kernel as usual. > My tar cannot use bz2-compressed unless used with ...snip... > Your tar is too customized to be in a FAQ. Unless you want to provide a URL: to the modified sources ? OR Just goto ftp.gnu.org grab the original & stick to just "it's" available options . Just my unneeded opinion . JimL ++ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | ++ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.1i iQA/AwUBOYmfU9bsrYDRJjJBEQIx3QCgshT14eDujACAdVPKvrqLLWIKsbsAoPGk cIZjEZFNbygVQHJfqYBJNzMI =j3v9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: md0 won't let go... (dmesg dump...)
Hello Harry, I noticed that on the higher IDE controller(s) are alternating 'PIO' drives . A suggestion , try placing these drives on just one controller OR not using them entirely . then try rebuilding using just the DMA capable ones . Just a possibility , Actually a long shot . Hth, JimL ...snip... ++ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | ++
Re: md0 won't let go...
Hello Harry, I probably missed this in the earlier flurry but which kermel version are you using & which raid patches ? Tia, JimL On Wed, 10 May 2000, Harry Zink wrote: > on 5/10/00 3:32 PM, James Manning at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Are you claiming that /proc/mdstat has the md0 active both before and > > after running raidstop /dev/md0? Just want to clarify. > [root@gate Backup]# raidstart -a > /dev/md0: File exists > [root@gate Backup]# raidstop /dev/md0 > /dev/md0: Device or resource busy > (This is normal, the fs is shared by atalk. I disable atalk) > [root@gate Backup]# raidstop /dev/md0 > /dev/md0: Device or resource busy > (Now this is no longer normal. No services or anything else is using the > partition. I made sure no one is logged in to that partition. Still, the > same error.) > Any way to force a shutdown? ++ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | ++
Re: Help Raid for sparc
Hello Ingo, On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote: > chunksize does have an important meaning in the linear case: it's > 'rounding'. We cannot change this unilaterally (it breaks backwards > compatibility), and it does make sense i believe. [certain disks serve > requests faster which have proper alignment and size. I do not think we > should assume that an arbitrarily misaligned IO request will perform > identically.] So i'll fix raidtools to enforce chunksize in the linear > case (maybe introduce a 'rounding' keyword?). Please lets not , Just -make sure- that the documentation say that this reflects the 'rounding factor in the case of linear arrays . Adding this keyword maybe appears as the best way but then we'll have people adding 'rounding xx' to type 5 arrays & wondering why that doesn't work . I vote for maintaining the Doc's , that say if this is a linear type array then the chunksize really refers to the rounding factor for this array . And make chunksize mandatory through out all arrays . My .02 ? . Tia, JimL ++ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | ++
Re: the 12 disk limit
Hello Ingo , Yes, Yes, yes Thank you Ingo . more below . On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote: > On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Lawrence Dickson wrote: > > >I guess this has been asked before, but - when will the RAID code get > > past the 12 disk limit? We'd even be willing to use a variant - our > > customer wants 18 disk RAID-5 real bad. > > yes, this has been requested before. I'm now mainly working on the 2.3/2.4 > merge, it's working but it has unearthed main kernel bugs. Is there a pre-alpha patch set , Would happily try them out if wanted . Now that I finally have a tapedrive just for the raid(experimental) system . >I have patches > for up to ~250 disks per array, but these patches are not proven and it's > a major change in the superblock layout. Please I'd really like to get past the 12 limit w/o doing the below . Twys , JimL > until these 'big RAID' patches are merged, as a workaround i suggest you > to combine two (or more) RAID5 arrays with RAID0 or LINEAR to form a > bigger array. Data safety is not compromized with this, system > administration is a bit more complex. (also you cannot get a better than > 1:12 parity/data ratio) On the bright side, this setup provides you more > protection than pure 1:18 RAID5. (eg. if you do it 2x 1:9, then the two > RAID5 arrays can fail at once, there is a 50% chance that simultaneous > 2-disk failures will be covered by this.) > -- mingo +-+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | +-+
Re: raid-19990724-2.2.10 , Can this be applied to ...
Hello Luca, On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Luca Berra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 02:31:06PM -0700, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: > > Hello All, Yesterday eve I attempted to apply the above > > patch after alan's ac12 , with (of course) 32 rejects . > > most of considerable size . > alan's ac12 already contains raid patches, tweaked by > ingo to merge with lvm. that should suffice you > without applying any other patches. Then Alan's patches differ in what & where they patched things for the ac12 . I have several successfully patched area's . Hmmm, This appears to not be good . But, I'll give ac12 a try directly & report back . Would you or anyone else like to comment on where these differances between the patches are significant ? Most of the successful entries are in the same files with the rejects . > > My question is , can the 0724 patches be applied to > > 11-2pre ? Has anyone else attempted this ? Tia, JimL > i belive thay can, but if you do, you are on your own :) > (remember, the fact that patch does not produce rejects, does > not mean thet the resulting code is correct) OK, On my own again .;) , Yes I am quite aware of the 'No rejects can still mean bad things can happen' . > L. > -- > Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Communications Media & Services S.r.l. +-+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | +-+
raid-19990724-2.2.10 , Can this be applied to ...
Hello All, Yesterday eve I attempted to apply the above patch after alan's ac12 , with (of course) 32 rejects . most of considerable size . My question is , can the 0724 patches be applied to 11-2pre ? Has anyone else attempted this ? Tia, JimL +-+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | +-+
Re: Raid patch for 2.2.10/Anyone tried/tested yet?
Hello Steve, There has not been an inclusion of the alpha drivers into this kernel release . I haven't attempted to apply the 2.2.6 raid patches (& I probably won't) to this kernel . Hth, JimL On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Steve Costaras wrote: > I saw that 2.2.10 was just released, I know it's rather early but was > wondering if anyone > tested to see if the rebuild problem was fixed? > > Also, any word on if the the raid patches are now included in the general > kernel release? > > Steve > -- > Steve Costaras Unix Systems Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Celestial Haven > Ph: (630) 852-9765 FAX: (630) 852-9263 > - > If you don't understand, read the RFC's. If > you do, re-write them. HTTP://3502543125/rfcs > -- > > +-+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | +-+
Re: Swap on raid
Hello All, Cool now when do we get the new alpha-lilo alpha-silo, alpha-milo tools to support the alpha-raid ? I know, I know, 'hack away...' tnx, JimL On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote: > On 14 Apr 1999, Osma Ahvenlampi wrote: > > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > it does work for me (i do not actually use it as such, but i've done some > > > stresstesting under heavy load). Let me know if you find any problems. > > > > Hmm? Since when does swapping work on raid-1? How about raid-5? > i've tested it on RAID5, swapping madly to a RAID5 array while parity is > being reconstructed works just fine. > -- mingo +-+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | +-+
Re: RELEASE: RAID-0,1,4,5 patch 1999.01.28, 2.2.0/2.0.36
Hello Mingo & All, The small patch below makes raidtools to compile for me under 2.2.1 . Hth , JimL +---+ | James W. Laferriere - Network Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | System Techniques - 25416 - 22nd S. - Des-Moines, WA 98198 | | Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux -but- only on AXP| +---+ diff -ruN raidtools-0.90-orig/mkpv.c raidtools-0.90/mkpv.c --- raidtools-0.90-orig/mkpv.c Thu Jan 28 03:28:08 1999 +++ raidtools-0.90/mkpv.c Tue Feb 2 20:45:43 1999 @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ #include "popt.h" #include "version.h" #include /* for BLKGETSIZE */ +#ifndef BLKGETSIZE +#include /* for BLKGETSIZE */ +#endif /* BLKGETSIZE */ #include #include "lvm-int.h" diff -ruN raidtools-0.90-orig/raid_io.c raidtools-0.90/raid_io.c --- raidtools-0.90-orig/raid_io.c Thu Jan 28 03:28:08 1999 +++ raidtools-0.90/raid_io.cTue Feb 2 20:45:55 1999 @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ */ #include /* for BLKGETSIZE */ +#ifndef BLKGETSIZE +#include /* for BLKGETSIZE */ +#endif /* BLKGETSIZE */ #include #ifndef BLOCK_SIZE
Re: RELEASE: RAID-0,1,4,5 patch 1999.01.28, 2.2.0/2.0.36
Hello Mingo, I have applied the 2.2.0 patch to 2.2.1 & have one
.rej (mm/mmap.c.rej) not sure what to do with this one .
The necessary change here is not obvious to me .
The below '-' line in 2.2.1 now reads .
unsigned long last = (end + PGDIR_SIZE -1) & PGDIR_MASK;
I beleive that it (may) does the right thing (tm) , I'll
try to compile it as it is in 2.2.1 and see how it reacts .
mm/mmap.c.rej
***
*** 556,562
unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
unsigned long first = start & PGDIR_MASK;
- unsigned long last = (end & PGDIR_MASK) + PGDIR_SIZE;
if (!prev) {
prev = mm->mmap;
--- 556,562
unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
unsigned long first = start & PGDIR_MASK;
+ unsigned long last = ((end-1) & PGDIR_MASK) + PGDIR_SIZE;
if (!prev) {
prev = mm->mmap;
Fyi, JimL
+---+
| James W. Laferriere - Network Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| System Techniques - 25416 - 22nd S. - Des-Moines, WA 98198 |
| Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux -but- only on AXP|
+---+
Re: most RAID crashproof setup = BOOT FROM FLOPPY DISK
Hello Benno, On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Benno Senoner wrote: > Martin Bene wrote: > > At 16:17 29.01.99 +0100, you wrote: > > >assume I set up LILO to load the kernel off the first disk (where the > > >/boot dir resides too) > > > > > >when the first disk crashes , the system won't boot anymore. > > >Solution: > > > > have a /boot1 ... /bootn on each of your disks; make each disk bootable. ...snip... > i plan to install software-RAID Linux PCs, where the user is a joe-average > user, > so I think for my purposes I think I will consider the boot-floppy option. If you plan on leaving floppy disk in these units , I highly recommend getting a floppy drive locking mechanism . I am not sure if one exists to lock a floppy disk into the drive , But I'll bet someone has made one someplace . Or mount the floppy drive internal to the case and secure the case . If you don't secure the media & drive in someway people -will- start playing with the boot drive . Always remember the addage, 'Joe Average User' can destroy an anvil with a rubber mallet. ;-} Hth, JimL +---+ | James W. Laferriere - Network Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | System Techniques - 25416 - 22nd S. - Des-Moines, WA 98198 | | Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux -but- only on AXP| +---+
Re: RELEASE: RAID-0,1,4,5 patch 1999.01.08, 2.0.36/2.2.0-pre5
Hello Mingo, Hmmm, I had to edit 'drivers/block/genhd.c' after
the patching to add the 'fifth' variable to the 'add_partition'
calls .
I also had to edit 'mkpv.c' in the '1214' raid-tools src's to
get them to compile on my system,
I replaced the
#include
With
#include
I'm attaching patches agains't these files only .
I'm also not very sure if these changes are the
best but they got things to compile . I'm now
going for the acid test , -reboot- . Ttys
Also below is my build / system configuration .
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
> i've just released Linux-RAID 1999.01.08, you can find
> raid0145-19990108-2.0.36 and raid0145-19990108-2.2.0-pre5 (no new
> raidtools) in the usual alpha directory:
>
> http://www..kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/raid/alpha
>
> [mirrors should have synced up by the time you have received this email]
>
> this is a bugfix-only release:
>
> - modules compilation error fix from Nigel Rowe
>
> - 2.0 'raid=' boot option fix from Nigel Rowe
>
> - the bogus panic fix
>
> - port to 2.2.0-pre5
>
> apart from the panic (obvious last-minute bug), nothing serious popped up
> since the last release (let me know if i've missed something), so i'll do
> a 'stable' RAID release (without any annoying version bump) in a few
> weeks, around the release of 2.2.0. (or earlier)
>
> nonintrusive new features might still be implemented until then, feel free
> to send ideas to the list or me.
> -- mingo Hth, JimL
+---+
| James W. Laferriere - Network Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| System Techniques - 25416 - 22nd S. - Des-Moines, WA 98198 |
| Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux -but- only on AXP|
+---+
-- Versions installed: (if some fields are empty or looks
-- unusual then possibly you have very old versions)
Slackware v. 3.5.0
Linux cp1500r 2.1.129 #1 SMP Sat Nov 21 22:46:22 PST 1998 i586 unknown
Kernel modules 2.1.85
Gnu C egcs-2.90.29 980515 (egcs-1.0.3 release)
Binutils 2.8.1.0.23
Linux C Library 5 -5.4.44
Dynamic Linker (ld.so) 1.9.9
ls: /usr/lib/libg++.so: No such file or directory
Procps 1.2.7
Mount 2.7l
Net-tools 1.47
Kbd0.94
Sh-utils 1.16
Flex 2.5.4
E2fsprogs 1.10
--- genhd.c-origSat Jan 9 20:16:09 1999
+++ genhd.c Sat Jan 9 20:16:39 1999
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@
} /* if the bsd partition is not currently known to linux, we end
* up here
*/
- add_partition(hd, current_minor, bsd_p->p_offset, bsd_p->p_size);
+ add_partition(hd, current_minor, bsd_p->p_offset, bsd_p->p_size ,0);
current_minor++;
}
/*
@@ -430,7 +430,7 @@
break;
if (p->s_label != UNIXWARE_FS_UNUSED) {
- add_partition(hd, current_minor, START_SECT(p), NR_SECTS(p));
+ add_partition(hd, current_minor, START_SECT(p), NR_SECTS(p)
+,0);
current_minor++;
}
p++;
@@ -841,7 +841,7 @@
for(i = 0; i < 16; i++, p++) {
if(!(p->num_blocks))
continue;
- add_partition(hd, current_minor, p->first_block, p->num_blocks);
+ add_partition(hd, current_minor, p->first_block, p->num_blocks ,0);
current_minor++;
}
printk("\n");
--- mkpv.c-orig Sun Dec 13 15:41:46 1998
+++ mkpv.c Sat Jan 9 19:44:34 1999
@@ -14,7 +14,8 @@
#include "raidlib.h"
#include "popt.h"
#include "version.h"
-#include /* for BLKGETSIZE */
+#include /* for BLKGETSIZE */
+/*#include *//* for BLKGETSIZE */
#include
#include "lvm-int.h"
Re: halp in appliyng raid patches to 2.2.0pre4
Hello All, I have been running 2.2.0-pre6 & the latest raid0145-*-pre6 patches all night . No problems yet . :-) I also had to compile up the latest tools , the previous were from Nov. or so . On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > hello > > i was trying to apply raid0145-19981215 to 2.2.0pre4 > > > I did the same to Pre5, same problem. > > Please fix this soon. > > Greetings, Eric. , JimL +---+ | James W. Laferriere - Network Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | System Techniques - 25416 - 22nd S. - Des-Moines, WA 98198 | | Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux -but- only on AXP| +---+
Re: 19981110 release. [was: Re: kernel autostart not working]
Hello Mingo, Find below a dmesg from a system trying to run 2.0.35 + 2.0.35-raid-19981110 + alan's-pre-22 + Gerards-53c8xx-3.1a patched in this order . The .rej's were from alan's patches being applied after the raid-patches , I did some manual patching from these .rej's generated . I am using raidtools-0.90-1105 . How can I be of help to get raid-alpha working under Alan's kernel patches ?Tia On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > > I reported this last week, but thought I'd send in an update. I've been > > running a RAID 5 array w/ kernel 2.1.125 & raid 19981005. When I > > upgraded to 19981105, autostart stopped working. It has continued to > > not work w/ versions 19981106 and 1108. > > thanks for the report, i've finally found the bug, this was a longstanding > bug, and i'm glad it's gone now. The LVM related rewrite made the > 'autorun' part more robust, and this popped up the bug. (earlier this bug > went unnoticed) I've just released 19981110, this definitely fixes this > bug. Let me know wether there are any other quirks left. , JimL +---+ | James W. Laferriere - Network Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | System Techniques - 25416 - 22nd S. - Des-Moines, WA 98198 | | Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux -but- only on AXP| +---+ e: 4188864 new md_size: 4188864 md: md0, array needs 4 disks, has 1, aborting. linear: disks are not ordered, aborting! pers->run() failed ... do_md_run() returned -22 unbind export_rdev(sde1) md: bug in file md.c, line 147 ** * * ** md0: no array superblock. md0: no array superblock. rdev sdd1: O:sdd1, SZ: F:0 DN:2 rdev superblock: SB: (V:0.90.0) ID:<75991f99.98cc936e.c7bad272.fe0db76b> CT:3632d5d9 L-1 S02053184 ND:4 RD:4 md0 LO:0 CS:16384 UT:364f3937 ST:1 AD:4 WD:4 FD:0 SD:0 CSUM:e9fb30c9 D 0: DISK D 1: DISK D 2: DISK D 3: DISK D 4: DISK D 5: DISK D 6: DISK D 7: DISK D 8: DISK D 9: DISK D 10: DISK D 11: DISK THIS: DISK md0: no array superblock. rdev sdc1: O:sdc1, SZ: F:0 DN:1 rdev superblock: SB: (V:0.90.0) ID:<75991f99.98cc936e.c7bad272.fe0db76b> CT:3632d5d9 L-1 S02053184 ND:4 RD:4 md0 LO:0 CS:16384 UT:364f3937 ST:1 AD:4 WD:4 FD:0 SD:0 CSUM:e9fb30b7 D 0: DISK D 1: DISK D 2: DISK D 3: DISK D 4: DISK D 5: DISK D 6: DISK D 7: DISK D 8: DISK D 9: DISK D 10: DISK D 11: DISK THIS: DISK md0: no array superblock. rdev sdb1: O:sdb1, SZ: F:0 DN:0 rdev superblock: SB: (V:0.90.0) ID:<75991f99.98cc936e.c7bad272.fe0db76b> CT:3632d5d9 L-1 S02053184 ND:4 RD:4 md0 LO:0 CS:16384 UT:364f3937 ST:1 AD:4 WD:4 FD:0 SD:0 CSUM:e9fb30a5 D 0: DISK D 1: DISK D 2: DISK D 3: DISK D 4: DISK D 5: DISK D 6: DISK D 7: DISK D 8: DISK D 9: DISK D 10: DISK D 11: DISK THIS: DISK ** md0 stopped. autorunning md0 running: now! md: former device sdb1 is unavailable, removing from array! md: former device sdc1 is unavailable, removing from array! md: former device sde1 is unavailable, removing from array! mask fff0 rdev->size: 2053184 masked rdev->size: 2053184 new md_size: 2053184 md: md0, array needs 4 disks, has 1, aborting. linear: disks are not ordered, aborting! pers->run() failed ... do_md_run() returned -22 unbind export_rdev(sdd1) md: bug in file md.c, line 147 ** * * ** md0: no array superblock. md0: no array superblock. rdev sdc1: O:sdc1, SZ: F:0 DN:1 rdev superblock: SB: (V:0.90.0) ID:<75991f99.98cc936e.c7bad272.fe0db76b> CT:3632d5d9 L-1 S02053184 ND:4 RD:4 md0 LO:0 CS:16384 UT:364f3937 ST:1 AD:4 WD:4 FD:0 SD:0 CSUM:e9fb30b7 D 0: DISK D 1: DISK D 2: DISK D 3: DISK D 4: DISK D 5: DISK D 6: DISK D 7: DISK D 8: DISK D 9: DISK D 10: DISK D 11: DISK THIS: DISK md0: no array superblock. rdev sdb1: O:sdb1, SZ: F:0 DN:0 rdev superblock: SB: (V:0.90.0) ID:<75991f99.98cc936e.c7bad272.fe0db76b> CT:3632d5d9 L-1 S02053184 ND:4 RD:4 md0 LO:0 CS:16384 UT:364f3937 ST:1 AD:4 WD:4 FD:0 SD:0 CSUM:e9fb30a5 D 0: DISK D 1: DISK D 2: DISK D 3: DISK D 4: DISK D 5: DISK D 6: DISK D 7: DISK D 8: DISK D 9: DISK D 10: DISK D 11: DISK
Re: partition type not fe but "0xfd"
Hello Craig , Try 'fd' not '0xfd' . Hth On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Craig W. Hansen wrote: > > > > this is my goof, it's not fe but "0xfd". > > > I tried this and the partition disappeared in fdisk. Any ideas? I'm > > using fdisk v2.1. > > [root@hell /root]# fdisk -v > fdisk v2.1 (>4GB) > [root@hell /root]# fdisk /dev/sdc > > Command (m for help): p > > Disk /dev/sdc: 67 heads, 62 sectors, 1019 cylinders > Units = cylinders of 4154 * 512 bytes > >Device Boot BeginStart End Blocks Id System > /dev/sdc4 600 600 650 105927 fd Unknown > > -- mingo > , JimL +---+ | James W. Laferriere - Network Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | System Techniques - 25416 - 22nd S. - Des-Moines, WA 98198 | | Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux -but- only on AXP| +---+
