On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 13:26 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Don't know, maybe you can try to build a custom kernel with
> CONFIG_PATA_SERVERWORKS (it is disabled in the Debian kernel) which
> seems to be the PATA driver for your IDE controller.
Yes that did the job; thanks for the tip.
Instructions
On 2009-02-16 10:57 +0100, Tim Day wrote:
>> Probably the reason is that there is no PATA driver for your
>> controllers. AFAIK these are preferred over the old IDE drivers now.
>
> Well this is what I'm thinking based on the apparent lack of any IDE
> goodness in the dmesg log. If that is the c
> Probably the reason is that there is no PATA driver for your
> controllers. AFAIK these are preferred over the old IDE drivers now.
Well this is what I'm thinking based on the apparent lack of any IDE
goodness in the dmesg log. If that is the case:
- any way of getting them back via a custom
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:13:52 +0100, Sven Joachim (svenj...@gmx.de) wrote:
> On 2009-02-16 10:05 +0100, Bob Cox wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 08:40:51 +, Tim Day
> > (tim...@bottlenose.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 08:57 +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> >> >
On 2009-02-16 10:05 +0100, Bob Cox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 08:40:51 +, Tim Day
> (tim...@bottlenose.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 08:57 +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
>> > Alternatively, you can try the UUID= for mounting the
>> > drive.
>>
>> Is there any reason
On Monday 16 February 2009 08:40:51 Tim Day wrote:
> Currently (2.6.18) I have a hda (the IDE drive) and an sda and sdb for
> the 2 SATA drives. Is there any way to predict where the hda drive will
> move to under 2.6.26 ? (ie should it appear as sda and the two existing
> sd* drives will move up
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 08:40:51 +, Tim Day (tim...@bottlenose.demon.co.uk)
wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 08:57 +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> > Alternatively, you can try the UUID= for mounting the
> > drive.
>
> Is there any reason to think the UUID version will work any better than
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 08:57 +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> Alternatively, you can try the UUID= for mounting the
> drive.
Is there any reason to think the UUID version will work any better than
labels ? If I have the labels method working fine with 2.6.18, why
would they not work with 2.6.26
Tim Day wrote:
I have an old dual-P3 Intel STL2 motherboard has been running Etch no
problem (2.6.18 kernel) for ages.
It has an IDE drive (root filesystem and swap, and it boots off it)
(/dev/hda on Etch) and a CD-ROM on the single IDE connector on the
motherboard, and a couple of big SATA drive
I have an old dual-P3 Intel STL2 motherboard has been running Etch no
problem (2.6.18 kernel) for ages.
It has an IDE drive (root filesystem and swap, and it boots off it)
(/dev/hda on Etch) and a CD-ROM on the single IDE connector on the
motherboard, and a couple of big SATA drives hanging of some
10 matches
Mail list logo
