Linux-Hardware Digest #317, Volume #9 Sun, 31 Jan 99 01:13:35 EST
Contents:
Re: Winmodem under Linux/DOSemu (Mircea)
TV application shows only a black screen (Ulrich Euteneuer)
Re: GRAVAGE AIDEZ-MOI SVP !!!!! (Thomas Zajic)
Re: STB TV PCI tuner & Linux (Ashley W Campbell)
Re: Recomendations? Dual Processor MB with EIDE built in and compatible (Allen)
Re: ATI Xpert@Play AGP vs. ATI Xpert@Play 98 AGP (Bob Sully)
Re: STB velocity 128 card ???? (K Lee)
Re: Plextor Ultraplex 40 max/wide speed control (slack)
Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring ("H.W. Stockman")
Re: how to configure 18GB drive? (Bradley M Keryan)
Re: Problems with number of heads from DOS FDISK partitions and Linux fdisk on 8.4
GB drive ("Charles Sullivan")
mounting linuxppc disk on intel machine? (John Lawton)
hard drive partition in Redhat ("Gang Xu")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mircea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Winmodem under Linux/DOSemu
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:09:23 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The correct answer is: there aren't DOS drivers for winmodems, these
beasts don't work in DOS, only in Windows (or a DOS prompt under
Windows).
MST
Thomas Hood wrote:
>
> If a DOS driver is available for a "winmodem" is there any
> chance that this can be run under Linux with DOSemu?
>
> --
> T. Hood
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ulrich Euteneuer)
Subject: TV application shows only a black screen
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:49:51 +0100
Hi everyone,
I have a problem with my TV board installation. The driver is running
well, but the TV application starts with a black screen :-( I can step
through the TV channels and hear the sound. What I also checked is, if
the framebuffer address of my video card (MAtrox Millenium I, 8MB ram)
is known to the TV board driver, and it seems ok. Where is my problem?
Thanks in advance
Ulrich
------------------------------
From: Thomas Zajic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GRAVAGE AIDEZ-MOI SVP !!!!!
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:46:04 GMT
Tristan Israel wrote:
> [ ... ]
Right. And you expect me to learn French now, just to help you with
your problem? Get real! Some people ...
Thomas (hint: the language commonly spoken in this NG is _English_ ;-)
--
=---------------------------------------------------------------------=
- Thomas Zajic aka ZlatkO ThE GoDFatheR, Vienna/Austria -
- Spam-proof e-mail: thomas(DOT)zajic(AT)teleweb(DOT)at -
=---------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------------------------
From: Ashley W Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: STB TV PCI tuner & Linux
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:18:36 -0500
I think the tuner is working, but the MSP chip doesn't load yet. In the
documentation, I didn't see anything about possible parameters for the
MSP. Does anyone have any experience? Thanks a lot.
The dmesg lines are as follows:
Linux video capture interface: v0.01 ALPHA
i2c: initialized (i2c bus scan enabled)
i2c: driver registered: tuner
i2c: driver registered: msp3400
bttv0: Brooktree Bt848 (rev 18) bus: 0, devfn: 112, irq: 10, memory:
0xf0001000.
bttv: 1 Bt8xx card(s) found.
bttv0: PLL: 28636363 => 35468950 ... ok
bttv0: audio chip: TDA9850
bttv0: model: BT848A(STB)
i2c: bus registered: bt848-0
i2c: scanning bus bt848-0: found device at addr=0x80
i2c: scanning bus bt848-0: found device at addr=0xb6
i2c: scanning bus bt848-0: found device at addr=0xc6
i2c: device attached: tuner (addr=0xc6, bus=bt848-0, driver=tuner)
msp3400: I/O error, trying reset (read Audio 0x1e)
msp3400: I/O error, trying reset (read Audio 0x1f)
msp3400: error while reading chip version
bttv0: PLL: switching off
-Ashley
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Have you load the tuner.o module with the correct tuner type?
>
> From Waitung
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ashley W Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am working on getting my STB TV PCI to work in Linux (RH 5.2, 2.2). The
> > bttv driver is installed, and I am getting colored snow in a portion of
> > the video window. That makes me think that I don't have the tuner set
> > properly. I have, though, tried both NTSC tuner settings and neither
> > works.
> >
> > Am I not setting the tuner properly, or is there a greater issue that I'm
> > missing?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -Ashley
> > http://s3.res.cmu.edu
> >
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
------------------------------
From: Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Recomendations? Dual Processor MB with EIDE built in and compatible
Date: 30 Jan 1999 16:29:45 GMT
To the best of my knowlege, AMD and Cyrix both gave up on the joint
venture OpenPIC, and neither has responded to my email queries since
they first announced it in developement as a generic substitute for the
Intel APIC, so you are stuck with Intel if you really want SMP.
I've got a few of the Supermicro P6DOF dual PPro boards that I picked up
as discontinued for a song, 1 w/256 Mb, and the other with 128 Mb, and I
will experiment with them, but if I were starting from scratch, I think
that the board at the top of my list would have to be the Tyan DLUAN
I've seen many success stories with that board, even in this newsgroup,
and nearly everything you would need except video is already built-in,
ie. sound, SCSI, IDE, ethernet... it costs more than I spent on my 2
supermicro boards, but oh, well... :-|
Craig Hanson wrote:
>
> "Kenneth P. Turvey" wrote:
>
> > I'm looking for a good mother board to replace the one in my Pentium 90
> > based system. My requirements are:
> >
> > Dual or Quad CPU compatible
> > Intel Chip Set
> > Built in EIDE controller
> > Compatible with Cyrix or AMD processors (I don't want to pay
> > Intel prices, I assume this doesn't contradict the
> > chip set requirement)
> > Reasonable price.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Kenneth P. Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> As far as I know there are no dual boards that support AMD or Cyrix
> because SMP was created by Intel. If you find one though I'd love to know
> about it, because I was looking for one too.
>
> Craig Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to making a
stable operating system and
Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world.
Linux; The Official OS of the New Millennium
http://www.linuxlink.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Sully)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: ATI Xpert@Play AGP vs. ATI Xpert@Play 98 AGP
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:09:11 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:25:34 -0500, Brad Nixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>|I've got RedHat 5.1, X 3.3.3.1 and an Xpert@Play98 AGP and I can't get it to work
>|properly. The closest I've got so far is 800x600, 256 colors. Even then, though,
>|the screen is divided into 3 columns and flickers seriously.
>|
>|If anyone else has got it working with this card, please let me know. I wonder if
>|RedHat 5.2 would make a difference...
I have *5.2*, X 3.3.3.1 and an All-In-Wonder (also with the Rage Pro
chipset) - works great.
_____________________________________________________________
Bob Sully - Simi Valley, California, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~rsully/
And on the eighth day, God said: "Murphy, you're in charge."
_____________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: K Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: STB velocity 128 card ????
Date: 31 Jan 1999 05:22:49 GMT
I have the card and it works just fine in XFree86 3.3.3...I had to tweak a
little bit in 3.3.2 with the config file, but with 3.3.3, I'm getting
RGB weight of 888, whereas I had 555 before.
Steve
mrushton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I have an STB Velocity128 AGP card 4MB. Has anyone had any luck in getting
: one to work with Linux ????
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Mike Rushton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Some favorite Fallen Flag roads :
: D&H LV CNJ DL&W PNER The Laurel Line
: Some favorite fallen Colleries :
: Huber Harry E (Bucket of Blood) Sullivan Trail Prospect
: Railroad and Anthracite Homepage :
: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6444
: http://NEPA.railfan.net
: --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
=====================================
Linux!
The Choice of the GNU Generation.
=====================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (slack)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: Plextor Ultraplex 40 max/wide speed control
Date: 30 Jan 1999 20:42:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hagen wrote:
>Is there any way to do the same thing under Linux? I'm looking for an
>Ultra Wide SCSI version of this drive at present and anticipate trouble
>reading scratched/damaged discs or CD-R/CD-RW discs at 40X...
A quick trip to freshmeat provided these results:
Description:
cdsetspd allows querying and setting the reading speed of Plextor
CDROMs, and whether the drive is to slow down on read errors.
Homepage:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mjm5/
Good luck.
--
===========================================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://slacknet.com/slack
"So that's what Hell is: I'd never have believed it...
Hell is other people." -- Sartre
------------------------------
From: "H.W. Stockman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.arch.storage,alt.os.linux,comp.periphs
Subject: Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:47:15 -0800
Andy Glew wrote:
>
> comp.arch readers may know that I am very interested
> in issues of how reliability for personal computers.
>
> In this instance, how to provide the reliability of RAID
> and/or mirroring to computers that have only one disk
> spindle, since the vast majority of PCs have only one
> or two hard disks.
>
> Which causes me to ask if anyone has support for
> single disk RAID or mirroring, whether as a Windows
> installable filesystem, in UNIX, even better in standard
> LINUX, or possibly at the level of the disk controller
> or disk drive?
>
> And, similarly, whether anyone has any error distribution
> data that would suggest whether this would be effective.
>
> I imagine single disk RAID as providing a 5th, parity, track,
> for every 4 data tracks on disk. Dibs as to whether the parity
> block rotates or not.
>
> Such track oriented single disk RAID would allow an error that
> hit any single disk block or track to be recovered. The usual
> performance impact (nothing for reads, a significant impact 4X for
> random writes, etc.). Hybridized with mirroring, read performance
> might improve.
It seems to me that the early raid drives just xored 4 bytes from 4
drives,
and stored the xored version on the 5th, with the idea that if any one
drive failed, its content could be restored from the other 4. I guess
I'm stupidly missing the point, but the mechanism of recovery was
predicated
on the assumption of serious drive failures, where one HD wouldn't even
spin
up, or would be garbled beyong recognition. I don't think I'd get the
same
comfort level from a single-spindle RAID.
My mirroring is extremely primitive. I have 2 physically distinct HDs
in
every system, and when I think something is really that important, I
just copy it to a directory called "mirror" on the "other" drive. It
is surprising how small that directory stays; perhaps my definition
of "important" works best (or worst) when I have just created the file.
> My question is motivated by the prospect of a weekend spent backing up
> my home systems to CD-R, and by my unhappiness at having lost data
> on existing storage media, both main disk and archives. (I hope CD-Rs
> last longer than my old magnetic QIC tapes and Jazz disks.)
CD-Rs are projected to last 100 years with "proper" storage (e.g.,
NOT in the attic of my Las Vegas home), and some say CD-RW will
go to 200 years, based on accelerated testing. There has been much
discussion of this point in the CD-R groups, and longevity is supposed
to be tied to the dye used. Those of you in the engineering
world may shudder or grin at the concept of relying on the ASTM
"accelerated testing" guidelines.
I've never had a problem with QIC tapes up to 7 years old; however,
my old ones are all lower density (120 MB uncompressed). The only JAZ
failure I had was when I accidentally screwed the scanner and JAZ
SCSI addresses and terminations, so the scanner software started sending
the JAZ drive
bizarre signals. Strangely, the cartridge started working again a while
later. I later dropped that cartridge hard enough to shatter the corner
of its case, but it still works (the cartridge AND case still work!).
I just started writing backups to CD-R, via an ECP parallel connect at
2X
(I'm constrained to use parallel, since I have to transport the system
to work and am not allowed to open up work systems). Since 4X is now
widely available and rather inexpensive, it is beginning to look
a bit better... but 650 MB sure seems paltry these days. However, it
has been a Godsend for tranferring half-Gig chunks of outputs to
my compatriots.
I'd tend to worry more about earth, fire and water, vis-a-vis
the "bulk storage" method at home. We have our most valuable
old tapes & JAZ stored in an "electronic media" fire-proof
safe. Those suckers are expensive, and small. Now some companies
offer file-cabinet-style electronic media safes for ~$400 (I think,
my memory is a bit clouded). Such "media" safes have to keep inside
temps below about 50C or so, far below the safe storage T for paper
(in a transient fire), and must also protect from the water damage that
comes with the fire department. Typically they are normal fire safes
with an extra 1" or so of low-T, rubbery, water-tight insulation.
------------------------------
From: Bradley M Keryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how to configure 18GB drive?
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:17:23 -0500
One way is to use the expert menu in fdisk to change the number of
cylinders. Then repartition and the kernel will use whatever the partition
table says is in use. You don't have to pass "linear" to lilo or modify
your kernel.
Example: I have a Seagate ST39140A 9GB drive, which is slightly above the
8.4GB barrier. The BIOS says 1027 cylinders, but I used the expert menu in
fdisk to change the cylinder count to 1108 (which, incidentally, is what
the 2.2.x kernels report, although I did this under 2.1.129). Then I
partitioned, and got my extra 500MB or so. Just make sure not to use the
wrong number of cylinders, and to do a "badblocks -w" before formatting
your partitions to make sure you've set them up correctly (which,
incidentally, will destroy any data on those partitions).
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Ben Sloman wrote:
>
> I've just added an 14.4GB IBM *IDE* drive to my Linux system (running kernel
> 2.0.32 on a new PC i.e. a PC with a new BIOS). I wanted to partition the drive
> into two partitions: one a Windows FAT32 partition, I'm afraid, and one for Linux.
> After many experiments, I hit upon the following method.
>
> I'm no expert so use this advice at your own risk: caveat installor!
>
> 1) I let the BIOS autodetect the drive
> In my case it reports
> 28229040 sectors and 14453MB in LBA mode
> 16383 cyl, 16 hd, 63 sec, 8455M in CHS mode
>
> 2) Create the Windows partition using windows FDISK. Reboot into Linux.
>
> 3) Edit /etc/lilo.conf to pass the `linear' option to the kernel
>
> 4) Edit the Linux kernel file /usr/src/linux/drivers/block/ide.c
> and rebuild the kernel as suggested in the LargeDisk mini HOWTO
> http://metalab.unc.edu/mdw/HOWTO/mini/Large-Disk-7.html
> Reboot.
>
> 5) Use Linux fdisk to add a second partition
>
> The documentation with the disk tells me the geometry is 16 heads, 63 sectors
> per track, and 16383 cylinders, and *28229040* sectors in total.
> BUT, this doesn't seem to add up:
>
> 16 * 63 * 16383 = 16514064 != 28229040
>
> i.e. if I use the documented numbers I get to see only ~8GB out of the ~14GB disk.
>
> Furthermore, Linux reports the disk geometry CHS as
> 1024 cylinders, 255 heads, and 63 sectors
> where
> 1024 * 255 * 63 = 16450560
>
> The SCSI section (!) of the LargeDisk HOWTO suggests that 1023/255/63 might be
> used to signal a drive accessed with LBA with a capacity of at least 1023*255*63
> sectors (the actual capacity being found by other means). It also mentions that
> the translation from CHS coordinates to a LBA number is independent
> of the number of cylinders on the disk. So, assuming I've got the heads and
> sectors set correctly, I can simply set the number of cylinders to give the required
> overall capacity.
>
> All that remained was to find out whether to use the documented head and sector
> geometry, 16/63 or the geometry reported by Linux 255/63 (or something else).
>
> I fiddled around a bit, and ended up plumping for 255/63 because it seems to work.
> Then I chose C = floor(28229040 / (255 * 63)) = 1757
>
> So I ran fdisk and used expert mode to set the number of cylinders to 1757, and
> created a nice large Linux partition. Here is the partition table I ended up with:
>
> Disk /dev/hdb: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 1757 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> /dev/hdb1 1 383 3076416 b Win95 FAT32
> /dev/hdb2 384 1757 11036655 83 Linux native
>
> I should probably edit /etc/lilo.conf to pass hdb=1757,255,63 to the kernel
> at boot time, but I haven't done this yet (i.e. I don't pass any geometry
> information to the kernel) so when I run fdisk without setting the cylinder
> count explicitly I get:
>
> Disk /dev/hdb: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 1024 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> /dev/hdb1 1 383 3076416 b Win95 FAT32
> /dev/hdb2 384 1757 11036655 83 Linux native
> Partition 2 has different physical/logical endings:
> phys=(1023, 254, 63) logical=(1756, 254, 63)
>
> Apart from this I don't get any error messages and I'm able to read and write
> the Windows partition from Linux.
>
> I've installed LILO in the MBR of my original disk (/dev/hda) and told it
> to boot the kernel found in /boot on /dev/hdb2. This works today, though I'm
> a little nervous that I may run foul of the 1024 cylinder issue in future.
>
> So, fingers crossed, I'm hoping everything is OK for the moment.
> I've been running for nearly a week without problems, but both of my partitions
> are less than half full so I can't be sure I'm safe ...
>
> If anyone has a more definitive understanding of how to install the new large IDE
>disks
> I'd be glad to hear their suggestions -- I've looked in the LargeDisk mini HOWTO
> and it helps somewhat but not enough to really inspire confidence. And I note that
> other people are also wrestling with these newer large disks.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Good Luck!
>
>
> Ben
>
>
> PS. As part of this process I also installed
> - a patch to add FAT32 support (see
>http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/people/chaffee/fat32.html )
> - and an upgraded version of hdparm from
>ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/hardware/
> and used it to enabled UDMA.
>
>
>
>
> A. Hirche ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Hi!
>
> : This is interesting!
>
> : Currently I am struggling to set up a 10.1GB disk. FDISK correctly
> : recognizes the size when the disk is completely empty and no prtitions
> : are configured. As soon as I add a partition, fdisk sets CHS =
> : 1229/255/63 to CHS = 1024/255/63. The kernel does the same.
> : I tried to configure the BIOS of my Asus P5A by giving the number of
> : cylindes as given on the disk label, but that resultet in the BIOS
> : incorrectly setting the size to approx. 8GB.
>
> : This problem does not appear with Win98-FDISK / Win98.
>
> : Any ideas on how to correctly set up linux so that it does not screw up
> : my disk?
>
> : Thanks for the help.
>
> : Dan Nguyen wrote:
>
> : > Ed Koshimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > : I have an 18GB ST118273W drive I'd like to use on
> : > : Linux. Right now fdisk sees 17366MB out of a possible
> : > : 18.21GB. I'd like to change the cylinder/head/sector
> : > : parameters if possible since right now fdisk defaults
> : > : to 32 sectors.
> : >
> : > Remember that 18.21 is the commercial size of the harddrive not the
> : > actual. 18210MB does not actually equal 18.21GB. Because 1024MB
> : > equalls one 1GB. And 1000000Bytes do not equal 1GB, 1048576Bytes do.
> : > Try doing this 18.21*10^9 (18.21G) divided by 1048576 and you get
> : > 17366. The correct size of your harddrive.
>
>
> --
> Ben Sloman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> phone: +44(0)117 9228946 Hewlett Packard Laboratories
> fax: +44(0)117 9228925 Filton Road, Bristol, BS12 6QZ, UK
> Not speaking for Hewlett Packard
>
>
Brad
------------------------------
From: "Charles Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with number of heads from DOS FDISK partitions and Linux fdisk
on 8.4 GB drive
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:50:37 -0500
The older kernels and fdisk have problems with large disks, but I
think your particular problem is due mainly to what fdisk sees and
what you are telling the kernel. If your bios has LBA enabled, fdisk
will _not_ see the manufacturers numbers for the C/H/S but the LBA
numbers which will be 1027/255/63.
(LBA maps the "actual" number of heads to a ficticious 255 logical
heads, thus reducing the logical cylinders to a more manageable
value.)
What happens if you do _not_ feed LOADLIN the C/H/S ?
Leslie Groer wrote in message ...
>Hi There
>
>I have a problem with the partitions on my new Western Digital Cavaliar
>8.4 GB that has been partitioned by DOS FDISK as seen by Linux.
>
>I am running Red Hat 4.1, kernel v 2.0.27 on a
>Micron 133 MHz Mironics M54Hi Motherboard with
>Phoenix Bios 4.05 upgrade from Micro Firmware with
>Win95 on /dev/hda1 (800 MB of 1.6 GB) and Linux on the other half of the
>disk. I will upgrade to RH5.2 once I get the disk problem fixed.
>
>Drives are seen as
>hda: WDC AC31600H, 1549MB w/128kB Cache, LBA, CHS=787/64/63
>hdb: WDC AC28400R, 8063MB w/512kB Cache, LBA, CHS=16383/16/63
>
>The CHS corresponds to the specs from the manufacturer and how the BIOS
>sees the disk. I feed in the CHS for the 8.4 GB drive on boot-up (using
>LOADLIN hdb=16383/16/63). If I don't do that, it sees the drive as
>CHS=1027/255/63.
>
>I partitioned the drive using DOS FDISK and Win95 can see the partitions
>fine. There are 4 partitions, 1 primary and 3 logical in an extended
>partition to get around the 2.1 GB limit with FAT-16 partitions (I don't
>have OSR2 so need to stick to FAT-16).
>
>When I boot into Linux, I see the partitions on boot up
>
>Partition check:
> hda: hda1 hda2 hda3 hda4 < hda5 hda6 hda7 >
> hdb: hdb1 hdb2 < hdb5 hdb6 hdb7 >
>
>However, cfdisk gives a fatal error -- "Cannot seek on disk drive" and
>linux fdisk gives the following
>
>Command (m for help): p
>
>Disk /dev/hdb: 16 heads, 63 sectors, 16383 cylinders
>Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System
>/dev/hdb1 1 1 4155 2094088+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
>Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary:
> phys=(276, 239, 63) should be (276, 15, 63)
>/dev/hdb2 3350 4156 15345 5639760 5 Extended
>Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary:
> phys=(1022, 239, 63) should be (1022, 15, 63)
>/dev/hdb5 3350 4156 8310 2094088+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
>/dev/hdb6 7723 8311 12465 2094088+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
>/dev/hdb7 12096 12466 15345 1451488+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
>
>Command (m for help): v
>
>Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary:
> phys=(276, 239, 63) should be (276, 15, 63)
>Partition 1: head 240 greater than maximum 16
>Partition 5: head 240 greater than maximum 16
>Warning: partition 1 overlaps partition 5.
>Partition 6: head 240 greater than maximum 16
>Warning: partition 5 overlaps partition 6.
>Partition 7: head 240 greater than maximum 16
>Warning: partition 6 overlaps partition 7.
>Logical partition 5 not entirely in partition 2
>1046360 unallocated sectors
>
>I did try deleting all the partitions using linux fdisk and repartitioning
>but I still get overlap warnings for the various partitions.
>
>I can mount the partitions in linux and I can create linux partitions but
>I am concerned about the warning of an overlap - will this cause a problem
>later? It looks like the Start cylinder of the partitions do not overlap
>but the Begin cylinders do. I am not sure of the difference between
>these. I do not want to be overwriting data on one partition while
>writing to another.
>
>Also, I want to install Win/NT on this disk later and having a clean
>partition configuration I think would be safer. How do I fix the problem
>of partition boundaries?
>
>Thanks in advance for any advice/help.
>
>Leslie Groer
>
------------------------------
From: John Lawton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mounting linuxppc disk on intel machine?
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:08:59 -0800
Hi,
For reasons I won't bother you with, I NEED to mount a macintosh IDE
drive that has both Mac (hfs) and ext2 partitions on an intel machine. I
need to have access to the linux partitions.
A friend of mine recompiled his kernel with necessary functionality to
read the Mac file allocation tables. Is there anything else that needs
to be done beyond this? Shouldn't we be able to mount the partitions
using mount after the machine has booted?
We have tried this and still are not able to see partitions on the IDE
drive.
I would be greatful for any suggestions.
thanks, -john
------------------------------
From: "Gang Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: hard drive partition in Redhat
Date: 31 Jan 1999 06:09:07 GMT
Hi,
I met some problems in repartition the hard drive when I installed Redhat.
Anybody can help?
The operating system of my computer is Windows98. The hard drive is 12G.
I partitioned it to one 9G for Windows98 and left the rest untouched in
DOS fdisk.
When I installed Redhat, the Linux fdisk told me that I had one partition.
============================================================================
--
/tmp/hda 255 heads, 63 sectors, 1024 cylinders
Begin Start End ....
/tmp/hda1 1 1 1148 ....
....
============================================================================
--
However, when I tried to create a new partition:
============================================================
command action: n
e extended
p primary partitions (1-4): p
primary partitions (1-4): 2
No free sectors available.
=============================================================
I got that 'No free sectors available' everytime when I tried to create a
new partitions.
Then I used the 'v' command to verify the first partition and I got this:
============================================================================
======================
Partition 1 has different physical/logical ending:
phys=(1023, 254, 63) logical=(1147, 254, 63)
Partition 1: previous sectors 18442619 disagree with total 16450559.
Total allocated sectors 18442558 greater than maximum 16450560.
============================================================================
======================
I met the same problem if I assigned the rest 3G to the second partition in
DOS fdisk.
Is there anything wrong I made?
Thanks,
Gang Xu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.hardware) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Hardware Digest
******************************
