Re: aic7xxx interrupt sharing - was RE: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-16 Thread Mike Bilow
Heinz Christian wrote: > > > From: Mike Bilow[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > The aic7xxx driver really does not like to share an IRQ. > Have you enabled the MP-APIC-Support? > > We have several machines each with 5 or more AIC7xxx channels with APIC > enabled on the same (legacy)-IRQ - n

aic7xxx interrupt sharing - was RE: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-13 Thread Heinz Christian
> -- > From: Mike Bilow[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Donnerstag, 13. April 2000 14:19 > To: Morten Bøgeskov > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: current RAID state-of-the-art? > > The aic7xxx driver really does not like to sh

Re: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-13 Thread Mike Bilow
In theory yes, in practice no. The aic7xxx is a high-performance, time-critical driver. If you make it share an IRQ, then it loses a certain amount of control to its brother drivers. This is especially annoying with motherboards which have both embedded aic7xx and Ethernet hardware on board, as

Re: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-13 Thread Mike Bilow
The aic7xxx driver really does not like to share an IRQ. -- Mike On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Morten Bøgeskov wrote: > I've done this and added dvd-ide, reiser & supermount. But this is not > really working 8). Does anybody else have the problem that an insmod > aic7xxx (which is my boot controller) r

Re: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-12 Thread Jakob Østergaard
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Morten Bøgeskov wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Jakob Østergaard wrote: > > > > >2.2.14 + 2.2.14 RAID + 2.2.15pre17 ( + i2c + lmsensors + homebrew wdt patch) > > > >in that exact order gives you a reject for raid1.c. Simply change the > >raid1_kmalloc routine so that it read

Re: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-12 Thread Morten Bøgeskov
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Jakob Østergaard wrote: > >2.2.14 + 2.2.14 RAID + 2.2.15pre17 ( + i2c + lmsensors + homebrew wdt patch) > >in that exact order gives you a reject for raid1.c. Simply change the >raid1_kmalloc routine so that it reads: > >static void * raid1_kmalloc (int size) >{ >vo

Re: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-11 Thread Jakob Østergaard
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote: [snip] > Either the pre-16 patch fails on an Ingo-patched raid1.c with: > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 211. > Hunk #2 FAILED at 303. > Hunk #3 FAILED at 719. > 3 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to drivers/block/raid1.c.rej > > or Ingo's RAID patch fai

Re: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-11 Thread Darren Nickerson
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, "Jakob" == Jakob Østergaard wrote: Jakob> I managed to get linux-2.2.14 + 2.2.15pre16 + ide patch + raid patch Jakob> going. You're a wizard! Jakob> You _have_ to apply the patches in the right order (which I forgot) Jakob> to minimize the reject. If you get

Re: current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-10 Thread Jakob Østergaard
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote: > > Folks, > > I need RAID and Promise Ultra-66 support, I'm thinking of: > > linux-2.2.14.tar.gz + pre-patch-2.2.15-17.gz + ide.2.2.15-17.2405.patch.gz > > since Alan and Andre seem to be in sync these days. But I need RAID and Ingo's > raid p

current RAID state-of-the-art?

2000-04-10 Thread Darren Nickerson
Folks, I need RAID and Promise Ultra-66 support, I'm thinking of: linux-2.2.14.tar.gz + pre-patch-2.2.15-17.gz + ide.2.2.15-17.2405.patch.gz since Alan and Andre seem to be in sync these days. But I need RAID and Ingo's raid patch (raid-2.2.14-B1) seems to be against 2.2.14 . . . so I'm th