On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 11:31:45AM -0400, James Manning wrote:
> This is something I never quite understood... why wouldn't lilo just
> blindly write to the mbr of /dev/md0? Let the s/w raid code handle
> putting that on the mirrors *shrug*... Is it as simple as having lilo
> check the block majo
At 11:02 PM 9/19/1999 +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>As i understand Dave and the Source on every initializing of the Cards
>the firmware gets loaded into the chips ... So you will always
>end up with the firmware in the driver ...
Yep... Looking at the code in qlogicpti.c that's what it does...
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 02:52:27PM -0400, James Manning wrote:
> In terms of possible future legacy problems, if you have any data slots
> in your superblock for such tuning parameters, future raid patches
> will have to respect that slot as taken from here on out... if param
> "foo" was taking by
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 09:50:55PM -0400, David A. Cooley wrote:
> At 06:41 PM 9/17/99 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> >Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:44:54 -0400
> >From: "David A. Cooley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Anyone know where I can get a firmware upgrade for the Qlogic SBUS
> >
[ Sunday, September 19, 1999 ] Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Should the maximum performance of raid0 be twice the speed of the slowest
> drive, or the agregate of the two drives speed ?
> What speeds are achievable practically?
Amdahl's Law :)
For separate IDE channels or SCSI, or any other situation w
Hi, in my current raid setup i have one fast drive (Quantum KA), and one
slow drive (Quantum ST).
I am not useing the Quantum KA in UDMA mode (old motherboard; PIIX3
controller) but the question is still relavent i believe.
Should the maximum performance of raid0 be twice the speed of the slowest
[ Sunday, September 19, 1999 ] CJones wrote:
> Gadi Oxman wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, James Manning wrote:
> > > Well, I tried booting and it died with some SYSCTL() errors (figures :)
> > > so if it looks like the patch at least has the right idea, let me know
> > > and I'll try fixing up the
Gadi Oxman wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, James Manning wrote:
>
> > [ Saturday, September 18, 1999 ] James Manning wrote:
> > > Ok, I wrote a patch that passes the ctl_table pointer of
> > > /proc/dev/md as the param for raid?_init, but noticed differing
> > > opinions on return values (althou
[ Sunday, September 19, 1999 ] Harald Milz wrote:
> Egon Eckert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It works. 0x901 should work too, I think. :-)
>
> Will it automatically boot from the second harddisk if the first one is
> broke? This may be a dumb question but I didn't follow the development for
>
