IBM FAStT 500 / Qlogic FC ISP 2200

2001-04-01 Thread Goetz Rieger
Hello all, I´ve run in some problems here. I´m not very familiar with FC-technology and now got the task of installing suse 7.0 with a IBM FAStT Hostadapter (Qlogic ISP 2200 FC) at my hands. The hostadapter connects through fc to a array with a IBM FAStT 500 RAID Controller. I´ve already found o

RE: sym53c8xx driver in 2.2.18 and ordered tag forced

2001-04-01 Thread Burn Alting
On Mon, 02 Apr 2001, Ralston, Steve wrote: > > I get a reasonable number of 'ordered tag forced' messages. As in > > Apr 2 11:20:34 swtf kernel: sym53c895-0-<3,0>: ordered tag > forced. > > This doesn't appear to have any adverse effect on the filesystem > ..., > > it's

RE: sym53c8xx driver in 2.2.18 and ordered tag forced

2001-04-01 Thread Ralston, Steve
> I get a reasonable number of 'ordered tag forced' messages. As in > Apr 2 11:20:34 swtf kernel: sym53c895-0-<3,0>: ordered tag forced. > This doesn't appear to have any adverse effect on the filesystem ..., > it's just that I'm curious as to why it is/would happe

QUEUE_FULL + use_new_eh_code = bad_karma?

2001-04-01 Thread Steve Ralston
It seems that for a SCSI driver which sets use_new_eh_code (in Scsi_Host_Template), the scsi host will hang very shortly after a device happens to return QUEUE_FULL for an io. Same driver which does NOT set use_new_eh_code continues to work merrily along despite any number of QUEUE_FULL's. Can a

sym53c8xx driver in 2.2.18 and ordered tag forced

2001-04-01 Thread Burn Alting
Hi Peoples, I'm curious. I'm running a 2.2.18 kernel on RH7.0. I have a Symbios 895 based pci scsi card with a raid attached to this card. When I place a very heavy load (read and write) on a mounted filesystem on this ensemble, I get a reasonable number of 'ordered tag forced' messages. As in

Re: scsi bus numbering

2001-04-01 Thread Justin T. Gibbs
>On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > >[...] > >> > scsihosts < >> >> As a boot time option try: >> scsihosts=aic7xxx:ncr53c8xxx >> or if you are using lilo, in /etc/lilo.conf add: >> append="scsihosts=aic7xxx:ncr53c8xxx" > >that does indeed change the bus numberi

Re: scsi bus numbering

2001-04-01 Thread Douglas Gilbert
Peter Daum wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > > [...] > > > > scsihosts < > > > > As a boot time option try: > > scsihosts=aic7xxx:ncr53c8xxx > > or if you are using lilo, in /etc/lilo.conf add: > > append="scsihosts=aic7xxx:ncr53c8xxx" > > that d

Re: scsi bus numbering

2001-04-01 Thread Peter Daum
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Douglas Gilbert wrote: [...] > > scsihosts < > > As a boot time option try: > scsihosts=aic7xxx:ncr53c8xxx > or if you are using lilo, in /etc/lilo.conf add: > append="scsihosts=aic7xxx:ncr53c8xxx" that does indeed change the bus numbering. Unfortun

Re: scsi bus numbering

2001-04-01 Thread Douglas Gilbert
Peter Daum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For some reason, the order of initializing the scsi drivers > changed between 2.4.2 and 2.4.3: If both, ncr53c8xx and aic7xxx > drivers are included in the kernel, up to version 2.4.2, the > adaptec driver always came first (so the first disk on an adaptec >

Re: add-single-device won't work in 2.4.3

2001-04-01 Thread Armin Obersteiner
hi! problem resolved: the first scsi adaptor is scsi1 NOT scsi0 as in <=2.4.2. so i did add/remove devices from a non existend controller ... thanks for posting your /proc/scsi/scsi, i compared it with mine from 2.4.2 and voila! i hope this is a "wanted" behavior ... thanks for all your fast r