On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> >
> > > Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
> > > of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
> >
> >
Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> >
> > > Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
> > > of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
> >
> > FastTrak == Ultra -
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
>
> > Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
> > of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
>
> FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID
But Fake-RAID is CHEAP to get two
[Rupa Schomaker]
> In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> different geometry.
[...]
> I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to have the same geometry so
> that the partition info is the same between the two drives. Makes
> life easier.
If that's what you needed,
On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
> But now it doesn't matter. The drive was tainted (fdisk run while
> attached to the mainboard controller) and now that geometry is
> "stuck".I was mostly explaining why it is nice to get the
> same geometry on two identical drives (RAID1 is easier for
On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
But now it doesn't matter. The drive was tainted (fdisk run while
attached to the mainboard controller) and now that geometry is
"stuck". shrug I was mostly explaining why it is nice to get the
same geometry on two identical drives (RAID1 is easier
[Rupa Schomaker]
In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
different geometry.
[...]
I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to have the same geometry so
that the partition info is the same between the two drives. Makes
life easier.
If that's what you needed, you
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID
But Fake-RAID is CHEAP to get two
Matthias Andree wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID
But
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Matthias Andree wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
FastTrak == Ultra -
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
>
> > Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > > > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > > > I see nothing very
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:
> > Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
> > which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
> > info on ALL drives.
> Maybe a compile option could help...
kernel
Okay..
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:
> > > Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
> > > which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
> > > info on ALL
> In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> different geometry. How could that be?
A FAQ.
Read "14.2 Nonproblem: Identical disks have different geometry?"
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/Large-Disk-14.html#ss14.2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Mark Lord writes:
> Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
> which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
> info on ALL drives.
It doesn't work.
I wrote the code and asked people to test it.
So many BIOS quirks.
(Numbering of drives depends on setup
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:
> Simple solution is to have kernel fall-back to LBA style
> translations instead of kernel "basic" translations.
> This would make it match the first two "BIOS" drives
> on most systems, and not really hurt anything in most cases.
>
> Even better would be
Simple solution is to have kernel fall-back to LBA style
translations instead of kernel "basic" translations.
This would make it match the first two "BIOS" drives
on most systems, and not really hurt anything in most cases.
Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
which
On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
> Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > > I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
> >
> > We agree Andries, but the
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
>
> We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.
In my case, I
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
> of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ole Aamot writes:
>
> We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
> and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.
>
> Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
>
Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Ole Aamot writes:
We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.
Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
disks (identified as hde, hdf, hdg, hdh).
But there
There is not problem, the BIOS in the addon cards/promise do not
translation for you like the mainboard does.
If you are worried pass the geometry by hand
hd{e,f,g,h}=9345,255,63
Cheers,
On 31 Jan 2001, Ole Aamot wrote:
> We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
> and
We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.
Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
disks (identified as hde, hdf, hdg, hdh).
[root@nngds1 /root]# cat /proc/ide/hd[abcefgh]/geometry
We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.
Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
disks (identified as hde, hdf, hdg, hdh).
[root@nngds1 /root]# cat /proc/ide/hd[abcefgh]/geometry
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ole Aamot writes:
We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.
Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
disks
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.
In my case, I have two
On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to
Simple solution is to have kernel fall-back to LBA style
translations instead of kernel "basic" translations.
This would make it match the first two "BIOS" drives
on most systems, and not really hurt anything in most cases.
Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
which
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:
Simple solution is to have kernel fall-back to LBA style
translations instead of kernel "basic" translations.
This would make it match the first two "BIOS" drives
on most systems, and not really hurt anything in most cases.
Even better would be to add
Mark Lord writes:
Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
info on ALL drives.
It doesn't work.
I wrote the code and asked people to test it.
So many BIOS quirks.
(Numbering of drives depends on setup
In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
different geometry. How could that be?
A FAQ.
Read "14.2 Nonproblem: Identical disks have different geometry?"
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/Large-Disk-14.html#ss14.2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Okay..
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:
Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
info on ALL drives.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:
Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
info on ALL drives.
Maybe a compile option could help...
kernel parameter
Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
37 matches
Mail list logo
