Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I'm thinking that 100Mbit/sec is somewhat slower than even the 16MB/sec >that the drive in my laptop can maintain. I'd expect that 'fast' IDE >drives in a RAID configuration should be able to do better than that. > The price of 1000 base T is down. Even Radio Shack sells cat 6 cables. (I know, cat 6 isn't an official standard yet. That usually doesn't stop people from selling it.) That should give up to 100MB / sec. The software delay should be no more than emulating a SCSI controller. For a dedicated box, most of RAM can be buffers. Bob Sparks Linux guru wannabe * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
I'm thinkin' what you need is this: *** Ximian Connector is an optional add-in to Ximian Evolution that is now available for purchase. With Ximian Connector installed, Ximian Evolution functions as a Microsoft Exchange 2000 client, seamlessly integrated with Exchange calendaring and other mail storage and mail handling features. *** It's called the Ximian connector, and it's an addin for Evolution. Read about it here: http://www.ximian.com/products/connector/ Hopefully this will get you what you need without setting up anything Microsoft. Rich Cloutier SYSTEM SUPPORT SERVICES President, C*O www.sysupport.com * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
Benjamin Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, that is not quite true. If you run Exchange, there is something > called Outlook Web Access (OWA), which, as you can probably guess, is a > web-based interface to Exchange. I am not sure how much functionality is > available in it, though. I've used OWA before. The pages look pretty (assuming you set up your fonts correctly...), but I have a difficult time actually using this system to setup a meeting. (merely using this system to indicate that I am out of the office is a tad bit easier) Another downside of OWA is that by default you have to login *a lot*, since the sessions time out after an hour or so. On the bright side, if somebody else sets up a meeting, the Exchange system sends me an email with a URL in it that I can use to indicate my attendance at that meeting. This works pretty well. (luckily, I don't have an overwhelming number of meetings...) If the original poster happens to be using Sun/Solaris (yes, I see that the subject line reads "Linux"), he might want to check out Sun's "sunpci" cards. These are basically a complete PC on a card, and you can run Win2K on these cards and display the output inside a window in X. --kevin -- Kevin D. Clark (CetaceanNetworks.com!kclark) | Cetacean Networks, Inc. | Give me a decent UNIX Portsmouth, N.H. (USA)| and I can move the world alumni.unh.edu!kdc (PGP Key Available)| * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
OK. I have a really bizarre solution for you - and it usually works for me... I keep my schedule on my palm pilot, and there's lots-o-software to sync outlook with my pilot. When I find that I *absolutely have to* keep some MS-centric customer up to date with my calendar - I just upload my pilot to it. This also works for Yahoo (and evolution - sorta). The only problem is that most of the sync packages don't let me sync just a particular category, so the customer gets a lot of stuff they shouldn't, which I have to delete. Recently I've taken to keeping my "public" calendar on Yahoo!, and just syncing that with the customer's outlook. Saves on time mousing around with windows. --Bruce David Roberts wrote: > OK, I'm stumped. I have been running Linux for over 3 years > here (longer overall, but I've only been here for 3 years, 6 > months, ...) and have run into something I am not sure how > to fix - guess I'm not up on my Micro$oft tools. I have > worked in predominantly Unix environments since leaving the > VMS world back in '92 so I have had little exposure to the > new Windoze tools. > > I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he > means, much less how to fix it. All I know about Outlook is > it's reputation for attracting viruses so PLEASE don't say I > have to break down and run NT - I just might have to find a > new employer... ;-) > > > Original Message > > >>Subject: RE: [Fwd: <...deleted...> meeting] >>Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 >> >>Hi Dave, >> >>You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't >>have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. >>Could you please correct? >> >>thanks >><...deleted...> >> > > * > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. > * > * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:55:49 EST David Roberts said: > Original Message > >> Subject: RE: [Fwd: <...deleted...> meeting] >> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 >> >> Hi Dave, >> >> You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't >> have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. >> Could you please correct? >> >> thanks You could tell him you don't use a calendar, therefore it's pointless. Or, you could just publish a calendar which is completely filled ALL THE TIME :) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Jerry Feldman wrote: > Without commenting on the internal politics of your company. Many companies > have standardized on Microsoft Outlook. > First, find out exactly what he is talking about. > If you must run Outlook, I would suggest that you look at Codeweaver's > crossover office (which is a much improved wine) and install MS Office so > you can run those tools when necessary. Or you could get a copy of Win4Lin > or VMWare and run Windows on your Linux box. > IMHO, the CrossoverOffice solution is the cheapest in terms of $$$ as well > as system resources. (http://www.codeweavers.com). I was going to suggest that as well. It does work, though it's not perfect and can be a little sluggish at times. The other option that might be open to you is to use a Win2K/NT40 terminal server. FWIW w2k (at least advanced server) has this built in for 'administrative' functions. I use the Linux rdesktop client and it works quiet nicely. One thing MS did get right with this is that you can disconnect w/o ending your session, then reconnect to it later. --rdp -- Rich Payne http://talisman.mv.com * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
Without commenting on the internal politics of your company. Many companies have standardized on Microsoft Outlook. First, find out exactly what he is talking about. If you must run Outlook, I would suggest that you look at Codeweaver's crossover office (which is a much improved wine) and install MS Office so you can run those tools when necessary. Or you could get a copy of Win4Lin or VMWare and run Windows on your Linux box. IMHO, the CrossoverOffice solution is the cheapest in terms of $$$ as well as system resources. (http://www.codeweavers.com). On 4 Apr 2002 at 16:55, David Roberts wrote: > OK, I'm stumped. I have been running Linux for over 3 years > here (longer overall, but I've only been here for 3 years, 6 > months, ...) and have run into something I am not sure how > to fix - guess I'm not up on my Micro$oft tools. I have > worked in predominantly Unix environments since leaving the > VMS world back in '92 so I have had little exposure to the > new Windoze tools. > > I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he > means, much less how to fix it. All I know about Outlook is > it's reputation for attracting viruses so PLEASE don't say I > have to break down and run NT - I just might have to find a > new employer... ;-) > > > Original Message > > > Subject: RE: [Fwd: <...deleted...> meeting] > > Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't > > have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. > > Could you please correct? > > > > thanks > > <...deleted...> > > * > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. > * -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Benjamin Scott hath spake thusly: > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 4:01pm, Derek D. Martin wrote: > > Legally, they have to. Kimberlite is GPL, and any product based on it > > must also be GPL. > > No, any product incorporating Kimberlite's *code* has to be GPL. Which, as I understand it, is precisely what they're doing. > RHS might simply be using Kimberlite as the foundation of a suite of > cluster tools, in which case the rest of it can be whatever they want. Quite true. But realize that the people who wrote kimberlite are the same people (more or less) who are working on RH's product. Realize also that kimberlite does not provide adequate data integrity for certain services (which is what distinguished it from Convolo). What they're doing is basically (again, as I understand it) using Kimberlite's code as a basis for a new product to replace Convolo. Much of the code will be reused, I gather. It is certainly true though, that any programs they develop which are independent of Kimberlite and (a key point here) do not link against any of its libraries (all of which were licensed under the GPL, AFAIK) are not subject to the GPL. My suspicion is that there will be very few of those. > The GPL is probably one of the most misunderstood documents in the > computer industry. Only because people bother to try; I think the same would be true of any EULA, if people bothered to read them. It seems that you and I agree in our interpretation of the GPL, and I'm fairly confident that I've interpreted it correctly. However, I make the disclaimers I make mainly because a) I'm not a lawyer and far from expert in interpreting the legal jargon of licenses and contracts; and because b) as much as I'd like to, I do not know everything. =8^) - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rM/BdjdlQoHP510RAibDAJ9UJF6iiRXZTg+ohScbRb0vJV/ngACgiSQR mQYuP15yBjepJarjdSdTLyE= =BoCD -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 17:06, Benjamin Scott wrote: > Actually, that is not quite true. If you run Exchange, there is something > called Outlook Web Access (OWA), which, as you can probably guess, is a > web-based interface to Exchange. I am not sure how much functionality is > available in it, though. OWA is literally feature-for-feature identical (including bugs and virii) to Outlook. It is a web-page that looks exactly like Outlook. C-Ya, Kenny -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
The "Availability" feature in Outlook is based on the Scheduling system that is built into Exchange. There is nothing that you can do other than run Windoze. Ximian, did, however, just come out with a product called "Ximian Connector" That will allow you to connect to an Exchange server if you use the Ximian Evolution mail client (http://www.ximian.com/products/connector/). However, the Exchange server *MUST* be Exchange 2000, and it has to have the OWA (outlook Web Access) module installed and running. C-Ya, Kenny On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 16:55, David Roberts wrote: > OK, I'm stumped. I have been running Linux for over 3 years > here (longer overall, but I've only been here for 3 years, 6 > months, ...) and have run into something I am not sure how > to fix - guess I'm not up on my Micro$oft tools. I have > worked in predominantly Unix environments since leaving the > VMS world back in '92 so I have had little exposure to the > new Windoze tools. > > I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he > means, much less how to fix it. All I know about Outlook is > it's reputation for attracting viruses so PLEASE don't say I > have to break down and run NT - I just might have to find a > new employer... ;-) > > > Original Message > > > Subject: RE: [Fwd: <...deleted...> meeting] > > Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't > > have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. > > Could you please correct? > > > > thanks > > <...deleted...> > > * > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. > * -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 4:55pm, David Roberts wrote: > I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he means, much > less how to fix it. He means you have not indicated your availability for scheduling (e.g., for meetings). Outlook has various features for calendar and scheduling which can be quite powerful, if used properly (they rarely are). > ... PLEASE don't say I have to break down and run NT ... AFAIK, the only interface to the calendar portions of Outlook is Outlook. Sorry. Actually, that is not quite true. If you run Exchange, there is something called Outlook Web Access (OWA), which, as you can probably guess, is a web-based interface to Exchange. I am not sure how much functionality is available in it, though. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 4:01pm, Derek D. Martin wrote: > Legally, they have to. Kimberlite is GPL, and any product based on it > must also be GPL. No, any product incorporating Kimberlite's *code* has to be GPL. RHS might simply be using Kimberlite as the foundation of a suite of cluster tools, in which case the rest of it can be whatever they want. > One of the sticking points here though, if I understand the GPL correctly, > is that they only need to be made available to those who ask for the code. In a nutshell, the GPL says: If you distribute this program, you are required to provide the source, including any modifications or additions you made, at no additional charge (beyond cost of distribution). That is all. It does not say anything about what you charge, or who you distribute the program to in the first place. There are some additional restrictions (e.g., you cannot further restrict distribution), but they are there mostly to close loopholes. In particular, the GPL does not cover *usage* -- only distribution. The GPL is base on copyright, unlike most commercial licenses, which are (attempting to be) contracts. The GPL is probably one of the most misunderstood documents in the computer industry. > It also does not mean you're required to distribute it to the public at > large; you're only required to make it available to those to whom you've > distributed the derivative work. Right. As you say, those you distribute it to are free to further redistribute it, of course. Which means it does not take much for a GPL cat to be let out of the bag, so to speak. :-) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
OK, I'm stumped. I have been running Linux for over 3 years here (longer overall, but I've only been here for 3 years, 6 months, ...) and have run into something I am not sure how to fix - guess I'm not up on my Micro$oft tools. I have worked in predominantly Unix environments since leaving the VMS world back in '92 so I have had little exposure to the new Windoze tools. I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he means, much less how to fix it. All I know about Outlook is it's reputation for attracting viruses so PLEASE don't say I have to break down and run NT - I just might have to find a new employer... ;-) Original Message > Subject: RE: [Fwd: <...deleted...> meeting] > Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 > > Hi Dave, > > You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't > have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. > Could you please correct? > > thanks > <...deleted...> * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > it's all open source. Also, I understand that RH has based it's > clustering solution on Kimberlite and they've already gotten it > up to where the MCLX Convolo product was. Don't know if they have > open sourced it or even released it. I do hope they open source it, Red Hat has made a release announcement for "Red Hat Linux Advanced Server" containing: * Availability with top performance, clustering, high-availability fail-over configurations and data integrity provisions through Red Hat Cluster Manager. http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2002/press_advserver.html The pricing starts at $800 a seat, but the beta was (and still is) public. You can grab the ISOs at: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/beta/pensacola/en/iso/i386/ This may be just like there other products where there is a free version, but it's missing a lot of the juicy bits from the expensive boxed set. I actually grabbed the beta and never got around to trying it. Maybe I'll do that soon. - -- -Matt "Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rMqEc8/WFSz+GKMRAg4IAJ40iQZvrMOx7bLVCUYk3MAZhS77UACfeHtP Bs4bf7qhh9mvjfTSfNODib8= =M6KY -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > it's all open source. Also, I understand that RH has based it's > clustering solution on Kimberlite and they've already gotten it > up to where the MCLX Convolo product was. Don't know if they have > open sourced it or even released it. I do hope they open source it, Legally, they have to. Kimberlite is GPL, and any product based on it must also be GPL. > since it was pretty good stuff for the Linux world. I'm hoping MCLX > will eventually open source the Convolo stuff too, since in the hands > of few open/free source hackers, it could go places :) I'd like to see this too, but I don't think it will happen. I'm curious if their patches to the NFS code in the kernel got kicked back to the kernel people, or at least were made available... I never bothered to check. Since technically they were derivatives of GPL code, and they were distributed to those who bought Convolo, they should have been made available. One of the sticking points here though, if I understand the GPL correctly, is that they only need to be made available to those who ask for the code. Just because you create a derivative work doesn't mean you're required to distribute it. It also does not mean you're required to distribute it to the public at large; you're only required to make it available to those to whom you've distributed the derivative work. So it's entirely possible they were not made available. Now, if someone had been given the code for those drivers, THEY could release them to the public, under the terms of the GPL... - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rL8xdjdlQoHP510RApsUAKClDj53fnFR9RkfMoz1DrR4hGtbwgCdERcG SsfWoeJEYVsRrogVv0ET3HA= =168M -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 3:28pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If they don't get their lunch eaten by the bigger players in the game. > EMC, Fujitsu, Compaq, and Maxtor ... And, from the word on the street, Microsoft. Apparently, Microsoft is upset that all those high-end storage arrays are not running a Microsoft OS internally, and is starting to focus a fair slice of their considerable muscle on getting more storage vendors to buy into their scheme. I can't wait for the day when my hard drive dies with a BSOD. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:35:13 EST Bayard Coolidge USG said: >If it were MY data, I wouldn't even try to do it. Maybe some of the >MCL alumni/ae can point to some public online documentation on how to do >it, and if so, that would be wonderful - they contributed a lot of very >interesting technology to the Linux community, for which we should >all be grateful. Ben Boulanger just pointed out a link on Sourceforge, too. You could check out http://oss.mclx.com for the Kimberlite stuff, it's all open source. Also, I understand that RH has based it's clustering solution on Kimberlite and they've already gotten it up to where the MCLX Convolo product was. Don't know if they have open sourced it or even released it. I do hope they open source it, since it was pretty good stuff for the Linux world. I'm hoping MCLX will eventually open source the Convolo stuff too, since in the hands of few open/free source hackers, it could go places :) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
Just to put the matter to rest, now that we've chewed on it all afternoon. I stated what I did earlier for a reason, and left out a lot of historical detail and other technical information, because I've been-there-done-that. In a nutshell, shared scsi (i.e., multiple initiators on a parallel SCSI bus) is feasible, is shipping from at least one well-known major vendor (ahem), and it NOT easy to do! You have to have HBAs with appropriate firmware, device drivers that can make proper use of that firmware, a SCSI CAM layer that speaks multi-initiator, and an application that will do what you are trying to do, including manage your input/output buffers. I don't want to even speculate as to how many people-years of work it took to perfect all that, particularly since that's sensitive business information, but it's kind of obvious that it took quite a few. I've been working with it for over 8 years now, and it's been a long haul. If it were MY data, I wouldn't even try to do it. Maybe some of the MCL alumni/ae can point to some public online documentation on how to do it, and if so, that would be wonderful - they contributed a lot of very interesting technology to the Linux community, for which we should all be grateful. Ben Boulanger just pointed out a link on Sourceforge, too. Yeah, there are some issues with the NFS solution, but they are well-know and well-understood (even if I can't type worth beans today) issues for which workarounds could be developed. I submit that shared parallel SCSI is less well understood in the Linux community and that the various drivers would need extensive development and testing work to meet the needs that were stated at the start of this thread. Please do not CC me on the thread - I am a [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscriber, and I might not be in a position to answer questions privately anyway. :-) HTH, Bayard * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:35:42 EST Robert Anderson said: >Although there should be better protocols than NFS. I know there are >ones coming that will be much better! Yeah, but are we going to have to wait until Dell finishes the acquisition of HewPaq? ;) >They are who you might want to watch for the newer NFS protocols that >are coming. I think you'll find they will be open standards as well. If they don't get their lunch eaten by the bigger players in the game. EMC, Fujitsu, Compaq, and Maxtor to name a few, are all out there going after that space, as are companies like DotHill (which has to be one of the dumbest names for a company I've heard ;) I actually heard a remark that one company is going after the True64 storage market just because it's a $250 million/year market space completely owned by Compaq. If they can get even 10% of that market, they'd be happy, since it's hurting their competitor, Compaq! Storage is a tight and fierce marketplace. NetApp ain't all that big compared to some of the players. -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
Found this old (seemingly dead) project.. .might be worth contacting the folks who started it.. http://linuxdisk.sourceforge.net/ On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Tom Buskey wrote: > > Benjamin Scott said: > > If you think of a SCSI-to-SCSI RAID controller, you have a perfect example > >of a smart device acting as a SCSI target. > > > > The limitations we encounter here are mostly in Linux. The Linux kernel's > >SCSI subsystem has long been a broken mess. My understanding is that things > >were improved somewhat for 2.4, but a total rewrite is still needed. So the > >core SCSI code, and the device drivers, simply do not support this kind of > >operation. Additionally, many SCSI host adapters (either firmware or > >silicon) do not implement target mode, or do so poorly. > > > > Anyone know of anyone doing this with FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD? > > I came up with a reference to SCSI target mode on FreeBSD in 1998 but > the thread died there. > -- When you have only two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other. * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:17:29 EST Benjamin Scott said: >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 1:24pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> It has more to do with that he wants to do something with SCSI that >> SCSI isn't necessarilly *intended* to do, but is theoretically >> *capable* of doing. > > Actually, SCSI was intended to do things like this. [...snip...] > You are allowed multiple targets and multiple initiators. The fact that > most people use a single host attached to a bunch of "dumb" devices is > incidental. [...snip...] > The limitations we encounter here are mostly in Linux. [...snip...] Intention being relative I guess. The reason it's a problem, as you pointed out, is that most people *don't* use SCSI this way. As a result HBA manufacturers have probably decided that it's cheaper and easier to not provide this capability. So, what started out as a great idea, went unused long enough to be "taken off the shelf", and now that we're at the point where it's possible/probable this capability can be used, it's no longer there :( So, to more accurately state what I meant, he wants to do something which the (current, cheap) HBAs were not meant to do, but *should* be, based on the capabilities provided by SCSI. Is that a little better :) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
Benjamin Scott said: > If you think of a SCSI-to-SCSI RAID controller, you have a perfect example >of a smart device acting as a SCSI target. > > The limitations we encounter here are mostly in Linux. The Linux kernel's >SCSI subsystem has long been a broken mess. My understanding is that things >were improved somewhat for 2.4, but a total rewrite is still needed. So the >core SCSI code, and the device drivers, simply do not support this kind of >operation. Additionally, many SCSI host adapters (either firmware or >silicon) do not implement target mode, or do so poorly. > Anyone know of anyone doing this with FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD? I came up with a reference to SCSI target mode on FreeBSD in 1998 but the thread died there. -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
>From: "Tom Buskey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:27:31 -0500 > >Bayard Coolidge USG said: >> >>>Take a PC & install a minimal Linux or *BSD on it. >>>Install multiple IDE disks. >>>Run software RAID on it >>>Install a SCSI card in it. >>> >>>Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use >>>it as an external RAID system. >> >>Well, as others have pointed out, using Target Mode is the way to go >>if you *insist* on doing it this way. However, I can tell you from >>personal professional experience, it ain't easy. What SCSI Host Bus >>Adapters are you planning to use and does their firmware "know" >>Target Mode? (Consider that a rhetorical question, BTW). How do you >>(plan to) turn on Target Mode support in your SCSI Driver or your >>HBA's device driver? (Assuming you know how, or it's documented...) > >I'm not saying this is a good idea for a production environment. As I >said in another post, I've seen something about FreeBSD being able to >do this, but I haven't been able to find it. I tested custom devices like this from EMC. I agree that it could be a usefull thing, and that it should work in theory. I think the big current limitation is that linux doesn't know how to act as a target. As far as I know there really isn't any difference in being a host or target it's just what role your system takes when probbed. My guess is that the BSD software to do this either, is a kernel module or takes over the SCSI device and handles all the requests "as a target". That would be the hard part. From their it should be very easy, SCSI devices are linear, like a large array of blocks. You just need a mapping from the target storage device your pretending to be to the real data and hand it back. You could cheat and use Linux RAID software on a filesystem or do the raid yourself to the raw disk space on the linux box. > I also don't want the traffic to go across the net. >> >>What net? If you have dedicated Ethernet adapters on each system and >>use a crossover cable between them, it's not an issue. > >True. But then you're doing network access instead of SCSI access. It would be hard to verify but I'm guess you could get almost as much bandwith out of a GIGABIT network as you would over the SCSI. And that code has been looked over more than your SCSI targeting solution would be. Although there should be better protocols than NFS. I know there are ones coming that will be much better! > SCSI is *much* faster then ethernet. >> >>I agree with Mark Komarinski's assessment. Running 100 Mbit/sec FDX >>should do the trick for you. Remember, you'll have some track/sector >>seek times, so it's unlikely, in a TP environment, that you'll max out >>the link for very long. > >Yep. 100Mb ~ 10MB (roughly). There's also some latency from software >RAID. > >I'm also not interested in creating a Network Appliance type box. Keep in mind that they are normally doing this over the network. They also write their own network stack that cheats where possible to keep the latency time way down on writes. They are who you might want to watch for the newer NFS protocols that are coming. I think you'll find they will be open standards as well. >>And, since you're running a database, you want to make sure your data > >I'm not. I'm just putting forth an example of where an NFS'd filesystem >doesn't work as well as a local filesystem. > >>transfers are reliable. Running with hacked-up SCSI HBA firmware and >>device drivers is not, IMNSHO, commensurate with that... > >True. Actually that's why I'm not really a fan of ANY software raid solution. If you try to define "hacked-up" you'll see there's a fine line between "product" and "hack". -- Robert E. Anderson email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Programmer phone: (603) 862-3489 UNH Research Computing Centerfax: (603) 862-1761 -- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 1:24pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It has more to do with that he wants to do something with SCSI that > SCSI isn't necessarilly *intended* to do, but is theoretically > *capable* of doing. Actually, SCSI was intended to do things like this. All devices on a SCSI bus are peers. Any device can initiate a command to any available target. You are allowed multiple targets and multiple initiators. The fact that most people use a single host attached to a bunch of "dumb" devices is incidental. If you think of a SCSI-to-SCSI RAID controller, you have a perfect example of a smart device acting as a SCSI target. The limitations we encounter here are mostly in Linux. The Linux kernel's SCSI subsystem has long been a broken mess. My understanding is that things were improved somewhat for 2.4, but a total rewrite is still needed. So the core SCSI code, and the device drivers, simply do not support this kind of operation. Additionally, many SCSI host adapters (either firmware or silicon) do not implement target mode, or do so poorly. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
This same tantalizing idea has intrigued me on and off for years: a PeeCee with some cheap IDE drives and a SCSI controller in it is theoretically all you need to make a RAID box. Unfortunately, there I've always been too busy with other things to get beyond the "Wouldn't that be cool!" stage. Two problems that come immediately to mind are (A) getting your HBA+OS to act in the role of SCSI target, and (B) performance. A generic Linux-style solution to A will almost certainly degrade B, while a customized solution to A probably means you don't get to leverage as much existing code as you'd like. Solving B means obsessing about latencies/throughput; doing all the RAID striping/mirroring junk while absolutely minimizing the amount of time you spend servicing interrupts, copying data, context switching, etc... >Can SCSI controllers talk to SCSI devices attached >to DIFFERENT SCSI controllers? I'm not sure I understand your question but if you're asking whether multiple HBAs can be on the same cable, then Yes, because SCSI devices aren't "attached" to SCSI controllers - SCSI devices are all peers, just like Enet devices. Using old-style SCSI (with its 8 possible device IDs) as an example there's nothing (technically) to prevent you from having the HBAs from seven different computers all connected to the same SCSI cable and talking to one single (desperately overworked) disk. * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 1:17pm, Derek D. Martin wrote: > How is the SCSI card going to access the information on the IDE (i.e. > not connected to it) disks? It isn't. The OP wants to turn his Linux box into a SCSI RAID controller. Consider those SCSI-to-SCSI RAID boxes from Winchester Systems that MCLX was using. You have one or more SCSI buses in the drive array. Those buses connect to the RAID controller in the box, which is nothing more than a specialized computer. The other side of the RAID controller is simply another set of SCSI interfaces. The program in the RAID controller makes the magic happen. There is no reason, from a technology standpoint, that one could not do the same with commodity PC hardware. You start with IDE disks attached to a system, as normal. You use "software" RAID to aggregate the disks together into one big "virtual block device" (with the "md" driver). Now put a SCSI host adapter into the same box. Put the HA into target mode. Write a special program which presents block devices in the Linux host as SCSI LUNs on the HA. Other devices on the SCSI bus can now access the Linux box as if it were a disk drive. [IDE_HDD] [IDE_HDD] | |< IDE buses [Linux_IDE_driver] | |< kernel block device layer [Linux_md_subsystem] | < kernel block device layer [SCSI_block_device_translation_emulation_thingy] | < kernel SCSI mid-level layer [SCSI_host_adapter_in_target_mode] | < SCSI bus [SCSI_host] > Can SCSI controllers talk to SCSI devices attached to DIFFERENT SCSI > controllers? No. (Well, I suppose you could submit requests on bus via proxy on another, but that isn't really the same thing, and you would run out of SCSI IDs rather quickly.) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
Bayard Coolidge USG said: > >>Take a PC & install a minimal Linux or *BSD on it. >>Install multiple IDE disks. >>Run software RAID on it >>Install a SCSI card in it. >> >>Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use >>it as an external RAID system. > >Well, as others have pointed out, using Target Mode is the way to go >if you *insist* on doing it this way. However, I can tell you from >personal professional experience, it ain't easy. What SCSI Host Bus >Adapters are you planning to use and does their firmware "know" >Target Mode? (Consider that a rhetorical question, BTW). How do you >(plan to) turn on Target Mode support in your SCSI Driver or your >HBA's device driver? (Assuming you know how, or it's documented...) I'm not saying this is a good idea for a production environment. As I said in another post, I've seen something about FreeBSD being able to do this, but I haven't been able to find it. > I also don't want the traffic to go across the net. > >What net? If you have dedicated Ethernet adapters on each system and >use a crossover cable between them, it's not an issue. True. But then you're doing network access instead of SCSI access. > SCSI is *much* faster then ethernet. > >I agree with Mark Komarinski's assessment. Running 100 Mbit/sec FDX >should do the trick for you. Remember, you'll have some track/sector >seek times, so it's unlikely, in a TP environment, that you'll max out >the link for very long. Yep. 100Mb ~ 10MB (roughly). There's also some latency from software RAID. I'm also not interested in creating a Network Appliance type box. >And, since you're running a database, you want to make sure your data I'm not. I'm just putting forth an example of where an NFS'd filesystem doesn't work as well as a local filesystem. >transfers are reliable. Running with hacked-up SCSI HBA firmware and >device drivers is not, IMNSHO, commensurate with that... True. -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:17:29 EST "Derek D. Martin" said: >How is the SCSI card going to access the information on the IDE (i.e. >not connected to it) disks? It's not, it's just acting as a transport, just like your ethernet card doesn't access information from the IDE disks. > How is it going to ask the kernel for data from a logical device that > exists only in the construct of the kernel? It's not, the OS will be seen as a target on the scsi bus. The OS will be listening to requests coming *over* the scsi bus rather than initiating them. > Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with how SCSI works, but I > guess I'm still not getting it... It has more to do with that he wants to do something with SCSI that SCSI isn't necessarilly *intended* to do, but is theoretically *capable* of doing. Figuring out how to take advantage of this capability is what we're all trying figure out :) >Can SCSI controllers talk to SCSI devices attached to DIFFERENT SCSI >controllers? Probably if the 2 are daisychained or connected somehow. > That seems to be the only way this would work, to me... Well, no, since he doesn't have any SCSI disks, just IDE :) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
Benjamin Scott said: >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 11:25am, Tom Buskey wrote: >> Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use >> it as an external RAID system. > > What you describe is possible in theory. However, it requires the SCSI >host adapter in your Linux box to function as a SCSI target. Last I knew, >the Linux SCSI subsystem did not support that -- it can only act as the >initiator of a SCSI command, not be a target of one. So any such project >would require a major rewrite of the Linux kernel SCSI subsystem (or writing >a private SCSI layer and drivers, take your pick). Either way, it would be >a lot of work. I've heard of FreeBSD being able to function this way. As a SCSI target. I'll go search on that. -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:11:17 EST mike ledoux said: >I'm thinking that 100Mbit/sec is somewhat slower than even the 16MB/sec >that the drive in my laptop can maintain. I'd expect that 'fast' IDE >drives in a RAID configuration should be able to do better than that. Yeah, esp. since most newer SCSI drives can burst well over 40MB/sec. (not sure what the average sustain rate is though, but SCSI reached sustainable 40MB/sec years ago, so IDE *should* be there by now :) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > What he wants to do is use Linux/*BSD as an embedded OS to act as a > RAID controller connected via the scsi bus. Signals would be > originate by the OS on the Sun box, sent across the SCSI chain to the > "RAID controller" which would access the data on the disks and send > the data back via the SCSI bus. How is the SCSI card going to access the information on the IDE (i.e. not connected to it) disks? How is it going to ask the kernel for data from a logical device that exists only in the construct of the kernel? Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with how SCSI works, but I guess I'm still not getting it... Can SCSI controllers talk to SCSI devices attached to DIFFERENT SCSI controllers? That seems to be the only way this would work, to me... - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rJi4djdlQoHP510RAt2/AKC3GWN0oLihZfdkThYw/yHYNTFXzACghac5 SP5Dyzm4ocBytLgVUfYqRfA= =642c -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
>Take a PC & install a minimal Linux or *BSD on it. >Install multiple IDE disks. >Run software RAID on it >Install a SCSI card in it. > >Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use >it as an external RAID system. Well, as others have pointed out, using Target Mode is the way to go if you *insist* on doing it this way. However, I can tell you from personal professional experience, it ain't easy. What SCSI Host Bus Adapters are you planning to use and does their firmware "know" Target Mode? (Consider that a rhetorical question, BTW). How do you (plan to) turn on Target Mode support in your SCSI Driver or your HBA's device driver? (Assuming you know how, or it's documented...) >>> I also don't want the traffic to go across the net. What net? If you have dedicated Ethernet adapters on each system and use a crossover cable between them, it's not an issue. >>> SCSI is *much* faster then ethernet. I agree with Mark Komarinski's assessment. Running 100 Mbit/sec FDX should do the trick for you. Remember, you'll have some track/sector seek times, so it's unlikely, in a TP environment, that you'll max out the link for very long. And, since you're running a database, you want to make sure your data transfers are reliable. Running with hacked-up SCSI HBA firmware and device drivers is not, IMNSHO, commensurate with that... Just my 20 millidollars' worth, and the usual disclaimer about this not being my employer's opinion. Bayard * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:50:47 EST "Derek D. Martin" said: >I'm not seeing it... Software RAID on the IDE devices in Linux box >presents a logical SCSI device to the kernel. How does one then make >access to this device go through the SCSI card, which is attached to >no physical devices? What am I missing? What he wants to do is use Linux/*BSD as an embedded OS to act as a RAID controller connected via the scsi bus. Signals would be originate by the OS on the Sun box, sent across the SCSI chain to the "RAID controller" which would access the data on the disks and send the data back via the SCSI bus. In theory, I think it'll work. Everything works in theory, that's why it's such a great place :) Besides, if you can do IP over SCSI, why not this? -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly: > > Say I'm running a database. NFS file locking doesn't work well. Local > > disk locking does & that's what this box would be. Local disk. > > Wince you're not sharing the DB files with other processes, this may not > be a big problem. Additionally, NFS locking (at least on Linux) is *supposed* to be fixed now, if you're using nfs-utils >= 0.3.1 and provided you use the posix locking functions (i.e. using fcntl). This according to a buddy of mine who worked on NFS on Linux for a while... - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rJOndjdlQoHP510RAhmiAKCL3DgXnyYqQ0tJG/dqkkokO5U9bACaAmrh K5DKyUPAgOdm930wHcOSGq4= =nHse -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Benjamin Scott hath spake thusly: > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 11:25am, Tom Buskey wrote: > > Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use > > it as an external RAID system. > > What you describe is possible in theory. I'm not seeing it... Software RAID on the IDE devices in Linux box presents a logical SCSI device to the kernel. How does one then make access to this device go through the SCSI card, which is attached to no physical devices? What am I missing? - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rJJ2djdlQoHP510RAj7qAKCIzNflTOeGCszIbVSy3qBJJ/o0wACfb3Tg er6Psk1nQFeundRtD0SYZQQ= =Y/fg -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 12:07, Tom Buskey wrote: > > SCSI is *much* faster then ethernet. I also don't want the traffic to > go across the net. If you set both boxes up with its own Ethernet card and just run a crossover cable between the two, you can get full duplex 100Mbit. Should be fast enough to keep up with IDE drives. > Say I'm running a database. NFS file locking doesn't work well. Local > disk locking does & that's what this box would be. Local disk. Wince you're not sharing the DB files with other processes, this may not be a big problem. -Mark * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 11:25am, Tom Buskey wrote: > Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use > it as an external RAID system. What you describe is possible in theory. However, it requires the SCSI host adapter in your Linux box to function as a SCSI target. Last I knew, the Linux SCSI subsystem did not support that -- it can only act as the initiator of a SCSI command, not be a target of one. So any such project would require a major rewrite of the Linux kernel SCSI subsystem (or writing a private SCSI layer and drivers, take your pick). Either way, it would be a lot of work. There is a Linux SCSI mailing list somewhere. Try a Google search for "Linux SCSI mailing list". Try asking your question there. Sorry I can't be more helpful. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:04:52 EST "Tom Buskey" said: >Basically, I'm looking at Linux/*BSD to be used as an embedded OS >controlling the RAID. The external machine just sees a SCSI drive & >doesn't care about anything going on inside it to make RAID happen. Oh, okay, so you've got: 1 PC with several IDE drives and a scsi controller 1 Sun with (presumably) at least 1 scsi disk and 1 scsi controller You should be able to connect controller to controller and access the disks on that scsi bus. I'm not sure if you can go through the OS to then get access to the IDE bus/drives. I've never heard of it being done, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. I think it might take a of hacking, but where there's a will there's a way :) -- Seeya, Paul It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
SCSI is *much* faster then ethernet. I also don't want the traffic to go across the net. Say I'm running a database. NFS file locking doesn't work well. Local disk locking does & that's what this box would be. Local disk. "Ingham, Stephen" said: >I would use a network connection instead of the SCSI card to connect to the >sun box. > >Configure the linux system as a NFS server for the Sun Worstation to use. > > >-Original Message- >From: Tom Buskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:26 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Turning a PC into a RAID box? > > > >I've heard about this being possible with FreeBSD but I haven't been >able to find any info on it. Here's what I'm looking for: > >Take a PC & install a minimal Linux or *BSD on it. >Install multiple IDE disks. >Run software RAID on it >Install a SCSI card in it. > >Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use >it as an external RAID system. > >Has anyone heard of this? I have a Sun I'm using (no IDE) and a spare >P166 PC with SCSI & IDE. I figure this setup is cheaper then buying >external SCSI drives. > >-- >--- >Tom Buskey > > > >* >To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. >* > -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > >Are you looking to just use the external system a disk chassis with >power supply? If so, you should be able to just connect the scsi >card to the external system provided the external system as a scsi >port to connect to. It doesn't need a scsi controller, just one of >the ports on the cable connecting the disks needs to be able to be >connected to the scsi controller in the other system. I want the PC to be a RAID box with level 1, 5, or 0+1. I want to external system to see the PC as a SCSI disk. Basically, I'm looking at Linux/*BSD to be used as an embedded OS controlling the RAID. The external machine just sees a SCSI drive & doesn't care about anything going on inside it to make RAID happen. >If that's what you're trying do I don't see why it won't work. >-- > >Seeya, >Paul > > It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, > but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. > >If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! > > -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
RE: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
I would use a network connection instead of the SCSI card to connect to the sun box. Configure the linux system as a NFS server for the Sun Worstation to use. -Original Message- From: Tom Buskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Turning a PC into a RAID box? I've heard about this being possible with FreeBSD but I haven't been able to find any info on it. Here's what I'm looking for: Take a PC & install a minimal Linux or *BSD on it. Install multiple IDE disks. Run software RAID on it Install a SCSI card in it. Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use it as an external RAID system. Has anyone heard of this? I have a Sun I'm using (no IDE) and a spare P166 PC with SCSI & IDE. I figure this setup is cheaper then buying external SCSI drives. -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. * * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Turning a PC into a RAID box?
Are you looking to just use the external system a disk chassis with power supply? If so, you should be able to just connect the scsi card to the external system provided the external system as a scsi port to connect to. It doesn't need a scsi controller, just one of the ports on the cable connecting the disks needs to be able to be connected to the scsi controller in the other system. If that's what you're trying do I don't see why it won't work. -- Seeya, Paul It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Turning a PC into a RAID box?
I've heard about this being possible with FreeBSD but I haven't been able to find any info on it. Here's what I'm looking for: Take a PC & install a minimal Linux or *BSD on it. Install multiple IDE disks. Run software RAID on it Install a SCSI card in it. Now, connect via SCSI to another machine (that doesn't have IDE) & use it as an external RAID system. Has anyone heard of this? I have a Sun I'm using (no IDE) and a spare P166 PC with SCSI & IDE. I figure this setup is cheaper then buying external SCSI drives. -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: dealing with non-ascii characters in perl
At 04:52 PM 4/3/2002 -0500, John Abreau wrote: >In the first, you're using regular ascii characters, i.e. the 3-digit >decimal >value of the non-ascii character's ordinal value. In the second you're >using >the character itself. OK, now I understand, thanks to everybody for their help. Peter Beardsley Appropriate Solutions, Inc. pbeardsley[AT]appropriatesolutions.com * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
