Linux-Hardware Digest #332, Volume #9 Mon, 1 Feb 99 23:13:28 EST
Contents:
Laptop and printer port problems ("Brian Thibault")
Re: 3COM sells crippled modems (was 3COM "support" (was: any voice capable/fax
modem software for use in warp4?)) (John Brush)
Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring (Andy Glew)
Linux on Compaq Armarda 6500 (Paul Nevin)
Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring (Malcolm Weir)
Re: CD-ROM can not mount music CD (Jim Shaffer, Jr.)
Re: Nvidia chipset support under X ("John Borges")
Re: bt848 tv capture card help please. ("karlo")
Re: Xfree3.3.3 ("David A. Frantz")
ESS1869 (Brian Rutledge)
Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring (Tim Shoppa)
Re: Mouse Problems in Linux (Hugh Lawson)
Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring (George Herbert)
modelines help (Chris Milne)
Re: download 5.2 onto 3 1/2 disk (Blake Sobiloff)
Re: Best Video Card For XF86 ?? ("David A. Frantz")
xvidtune (Declan)
Hard Drive install for Red Hat 5.2 won't WORK!!! (Kyle Gonzales)
Installing a DPT RAID controller (Brian Rankin)
Re: 3COM sells crippled modems (was 3COM "support" (was: any voice capable/fax
modem software for use in warp4?)) (Chris Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Brian Thibault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Laptop and printer port problems
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:26:46 -0500
Can someone please tell me how to enable my printer port on my laptop Compaq
Armada 4130 T . I'm running RH 5.1 .
Thank you ,
Brian Thibault
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brush)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.os2.setup.misc,comp.os.os2.comm,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: 3COM sells crippled modems (was 3COM "support" (was: any voice
capable/fax modem software for use in warp4?))
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:42:34 -0500
**The point is - WHY did they choose not to support X2, when so many
**other ISP's jumped right on it. I chose my ISP based on its good
**track record of service and support, and they have yet to disappoint
**me.
Please James, just a question, no ill will intended.
If your present ISP does fail to jump on the latest as quick as you
like, will you dump them? I only ask because I have waited for a time
with my ISP on occasion, as I would rather not change my email
address, move my web page, and get all new links into the search
engines. Perhaps you don't have such an investment and could switch in
a minute.
That would be nice, but not everyone can. Just wanted to point out
another perspective.
Have a fast download :)
John
///////////////////////////////////
Government of The People
By Thy People, and
For The People
Has perished from this earth
Who is gonna tell Mr. Lincoln?
////////////////////////////////////
------------------------------
From: Andy Glew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.arch.storage,alt.os.linux,comp.periphs
Subject: Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 17:28:29 -0600
> > I would happily lose 20% of my storage media in order to increase
> > reliability.
>
> Increase that to 50%, and use two-disk RAID.
Gladly will I use 2 copies of my archival media.
However
(1) I frequently lose one of the copies
- it's hard to keep them together, especially when they
shouldn't be stored together. Lose a box in a move,
and you only have one.
(2) My oldest archives, all of which are duplicated or triplicated,
frequently have errors in both copies,
albeit at different places.
It's one hell of a lot of work to recontruct a single logical
archive filesystem image from two (or three) RK05 disk packs.
Even when I can find somebody who can read RK05s.
Which is why I asked for tools to accomplish the merge.
Which is why I am interested in tools or systems that provide
such increased archive reliability "under the covers", transparently
to me the user.
Although I am more likely to conclude that reliable storage
media don't exist; that every 3-5 years I need to recopy all of
my archives into whatever is the latest and greatest storage
media, which also helps with the technology obsolescence factor;
and that, even when online storage costs are such that
it is feasible to keep all of my archives online, that online
storage media are insufficiently reliable for such purposes
unless a regular scrubbing regime is followed.
------------------------------
From: Paul Nevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux on Compaq Armarda 6500
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 07:57:19 +0800
Hi there,
I was just wondering if anyone else had managed to find a solution to
installing Linux on a laptop with a non-standard hard disk.
I have just purchased a Compaq Armarda 6500 notebook with an internal
6.5Gb HDD. Ideally I would like to run Linux, NT4 and win98 on the
system in 2Gb size partitions. I have a need for each of these three
OS's at some stage every day so this would be very useful to me.. if I
can get it to work.
The problem that I have been having is with the boot partition and the
strange hdd parameters. The disk specs are as follows:
cylinders: 13424
Heads: 15
Sectors: 63
Max capacity: 6495MB
As I understand it lilo has trouble installing on a hard disk that has
more than 1024 cylinders, and the boot partition must reside within the
first 512Mb of the hard disk. I have even installed one 6.5Gb partition
to see if I can get lilo to boot the first disk to no avail. The only
thing I can think of would be the failure to boot being a result of the
13424 cylinders. I get LI but no LO on boot time!
The Compaq has EITHER an internal FDD or a CD Rom, which are hot
swapable via OS.. so I cant install from CD then swap to FDD to make a
boot disk. Perhaps making a boot disk from another Linux machine would
suffice.
Any suggestions would be appreciated as I am not satisfied with just
running MS stuff on this great notebook.
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Malcolm Weir)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.arch.storage,alt.os.linux,comp.periphs
Subject: Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:01:43 GMT
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:13:05 -0600, "Andy Glew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> caused to
appear as if it was written:
>comp.arch readers may know that I am very interested
>in issues of how reliability for personal computers.
I *hope* this is intended as a hypothetical architecture type-question. As
a "real world" implementation idea, it's horrible, or possibly even nastier!
>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.
Uh... by changing the number of disks that the PC's do have?
This seems to me to be shovelling the problem onto the software guys becuase
the hardware guys (actually, the system architects) omitted a desired
feature.
>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?
Hmmm... while not quite what you had in mind, IBM did at one stage market a
device that consisted of a pair of 2GB drives in a 5.25in enclosure with a
single (SCSI) interface.
Depending on your requirements, you could format the thing as either a
mirrored pair, offering 2GB protected against mechanical drive failure, or a
striped pair, offering 4GB with reduced track-to-track seek times.
The problem with the mirrored solution was that a controller failure still
killed your system, and the mechanism to notify the host that something bad
had happened (e.g. losing your mirrored protection) was specific to this
product.
>And, similarly, whether anyone has any error distribution
>data that would suggest whether this would be effective.
Short answer: no. Something similar is alread done on (pretty much) every
disk out there, which they call "ECC". Error correction data is written to
the disk anyway.
>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.
Why 4 data tracks? Depending on the drive topology, other numbers *may*
make more sense (it would still be very little sense, but more!).
For example, a 2 platter 4 head drive (a common configuration these days for
disks in the 4GB-8GB range) would more sensibly use a configuration of 3
data tracks per parity track. Then a RAID group would all be within a
single cylinder, and no seeks would be required.
>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.
Read performance wouldn't unimpacted by this, since the number of
track-to-track and head-switch delays would be increased, and "average
seeks" would be worse, due to the "lost" space used for parity.
Write performance would be worse, with at least a rotational or seek delay ,
which are much worse than the time to write a track. Using your original
"different cylinder" parity scheme, writing one sector would involve a read
of old data, a rotational delay to write new data, a seek to the parity
track plus rotational delay to old parity, read old parity, and then a
rotational delay to write new parity.
Let's assume that your write "block size" is 64K (i.e. 128 sectors), and
you're using something like a WD Caviar AC25100 drive. The transfer time
for a block is (say) 3.46mSec (based on a bit rate of 148Mbits/sec). A
rotational delay is twice the average latency, or 11mSec. The average seek
time is 9.5mSec, but a track-to-track seek is 2ms. Assuming, for the sake
of argument, that we are using your 4+1 arrangement, that gives us a "seek
to parity" time of 8ms. This gives us a single-block write time of:
Read Old data: 3.46
Rotate: 11.00
Write New data: 3.46
Seek to parity: 8.00 (seek 4 tracks).
Rotate: 5.50
Read old Parity 3.46
Rotate: 11.00
Write new parity: 3.46
Now, let's be generous and presume that the reads of old data and old parity
can be "wrapped up" in the rotational delay that follows, but that still
gives us a total operation time of 42.42mSec, or 12X the single write
performance. Yuck!
Now, putting the parity in the same cylinder, we get:
Read old data: 3.46
Rotate: 5.50
Read old Parity: 3.46
Rotate 5.50
Write new data: 3.46
Rotate: 5.50
Write new parity: 3.46
This drops the number down to 30.34 even without optimizing down the
rotational delay between the "Reads" and "Writes" (which can be done fairly
easily). If we do this, then we presume that the both reads can be
performed within the same rotation, and likewise for the writes, giving:
Old reads: 11.00 (a single rotation)
Write new data 3.46
Write new parity 3.46
Which comes to a (wildly optimistic) best case of 17.92, or 5.2X the single
block performance.
>Such single disk RAID would not help continued uptime for
>whole disk failures, but would help data integrity and recovery
>if the disk could be repaired. It would also help data integrity
>for storage errors - bad blocks, bad tracks, etc.
>
>Which is why I ask about the distribution of disk errors:
>Are multi-block disk errors common, motivating a track oriented
>RAID rather than a RAID approach that kept parity blocks on the
>same track as their data blocks?
The point to note here is that there is *lots* of ECC stuff wrapping up the
data anyway, so any problem that *you* see has likely involved a reasonable
chunk of media. You do, however, appear to have forgotten that disks have
more than one surface...
>Are errors that take out
>multiple tracks common, motivating interleaving of data tracks
>protected by different parity tracks?
Yes. You sound like you're thinking of a disk as having something like a
audio record's layout, with noticeable things called "tracks". While this
is true at some level, as far as the construction of the things is
concerned, the disk is simply recording substrate. So any imperfection or
damage that impairs one track is quite likey to actually be involving a two
dimensional area of the disk, including adjacent tracks.
>And, overall, I am interested in whether this is available on any
>system I am likely to want to use on my home computer - LINUX
>or NT.
No.
Would it be worthwhile?
No. This concept would protect against one type of failure, which is not
terribly common (considered against other failure modes). While one could
hypothetically imagine host-based software to do this that would result in
even more miserable performance, albeit with no additional hardware cost,
this is not a sensible solution to the problem.
The problem is that recording devices aren't perfect, with a side problem
that they aren't fast, either. The reason why the creators of the term
"RAID" were looking at the concepts was simply that multiple disks are
faster than a single disks, but a multi-disk array is less reliable than a
single drive. RAID is the solution to this dilema: more performance with
better reliability. A single disk RAID would lead to worse performance with
the same reliability (by and large).
And you still haven't solved the "Oops, I deleted the wrong file" problem.
So if you need a more reliable disk subsystem, use more than one disk.
>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.)
>
>I would happily lose 20% of my storage media in order to increase reliability.
>I would not be so happy about the loss of performance on writes, although
>a hybrid mirroring strategy would help, as would a strategy that did not
>protect recently written data, but which, overnight and in idle cycles,
>protected likely to be read only data.
*THIS* makes more sense....
>On my active hard disks, 95% of my storage is read-only - installed software,
>etc. - so the loss would be small.
>
>On my backup and archive storage, such protection is almost a no-brainer.
On this I would agree that for achival applications, having filesystem-level
ECC code is nice... particularly if the ECC was dynamic in the sense that it
could start out mirroring files (protecting against accidental erasure), and
"compress" the files into a RAID4 like setup as the amount of used space
increased.
>So: is it out there?
Gawd, I hope not!
Malc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Shaffer, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,linux.dev.newbie,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: CD-ROM can not mount music CD
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:10:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You don't mount audio CDs. They don't have a filesystem on them.
--
"Withdraw in disgust is not the same thing as apathy." --R.E.M.
------------------------------
From: "John Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Nvidia chipset support under X
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:06:00 -0500
You can get buy by just replacing the SVGA server with the most current
version (3.3.3.1) and selecting a SVGA card in your setup. However
XConfigurator won't set your config file to take advantage of the best
refresh rate settings. Upgrade to the new version Xfree86 3.3.3.1 which
has native support for TNT cards. If your distribution comes with 3.3.2
you can get upgrade RPMs from the following source:
http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/
BTW, after I did the upgrade, XConfigurator and XF86Config were broken.
However the XF86Setup program from RedHat worked well.
The X-Windows works well on a TNT.
------------------------------
From: "karlo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bt848 tv capture card help please.
Date: 2 Feb 1999 02:35:34 GMT
Thank you for that. Cann't wait to have it going.
Frank Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> karlo wrote:
>
> > Could someone please direct me somewhere I can get the drivers and
software
> > for the bt848 based tv capture card to work under linux.
> >
> > thanks
> > karlo
>
> Try http://www.thp.Uni-Koeln.DE/~rjkm/linux/bttv.html !
>
> Happy Linux ,
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "David A. Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Xfree3.3.3
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:18:05 -0500
To extend this a little bit you should be able to get the required files
from SuSE to upgrade your Xfree. By the way I highly recommend the latest
version of Xfree, it fixed some bugs on my Laptop and my desktop system
seems to be rock solid now. My laptop is a geteway SOLO 2100 and my
desktop uses a G200. My best regards to to the Xfree team.
Of courses when I throw the new kernel on theses machines, that all goes out
the window.
One other susggestion you might not like: Switch over to redhat!!! If you
want to use precompiled programs its the best distribution to go with. If
your willing to compile your own probally doesn't make much difference.
Dave
Richard Payne > wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>My guess is that SuSE 5.2 is libc5 based, whereas the XFree
>stuff you are downloading has been compiled against glibc2.
>You want to look for these packages compiled against libc5.
>
>--
>Rich Payne
>(Speaking for myself, not my employer)
>payner at timken dot com
>
>Looking for Alpha-Linux info?
>http://www.alphalinux.org
>Len Cuff wrote in message ...
>>Just downloaded all that I thought I needed. Running Suse 5.2 and
>>downloaded 3.3.3 from RedHat. When I do the rpm -Uvh I get
>>
>>ld-linux.so.2 missing
>>libc.so.6 missing
>>libdl.so.2 missing
>>libm.so.6 missing
>>libcrypt.so.1 missing
>>libpam.so.0 missing
>>pam >= 0.59 required
>>xbanner required
>>
>>so what did I miss/not get
>>
>>I downloaded these as advised :-
>>
>>>
>> XFree86-100dpi-fonts-3.3.3-1.i386.rpm
>> XFree86-3.3.3-1.i386.rpm (required)
>>> XFree86-75dpi-fonts-3.3.3-1.i386.rpm (required)
>>> XFree86-SVGA-3.3.3-1.i386.rpm (required)
>>> XFree86-VGA16-3.3.3-1.i386.rpm (required)
>>> XFree86-XF86Setup-3.3.3-1.i386.rpm (required)
>>
>>> XFree86-libs-3.3.3-1.i386.rpm (required)
>>>
>>>
>>> download these from
>>>
>>http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/distributions/redhat/updates/5.2/i386/
>>
>>Any clues please ??
>>Cheers,
>> Len
>
>
------------------------------
From: Brian Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ESS1869
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:08:51 -0500
I have an ess1869 sound card, and I'm wondering how to properly
configure it with the 2.0.36 kernel. Any suggestions?
Brian
------------------------------
From: Tim Shoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.arch.storage,alt.os.linux,comp.periphs
Subject: Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:05:59 -0400
Malcolm Weir wrote:
> Read performance wouldn't unimpacted by this, since the number of
> track-to-track and head-switch delays would be increased, and "average
> seeks" would be worse, due to the "lost" space used for parity.
>
> Write performance would be worse, with at least a rotational or seek delay ,
> which are much worse than the time to write a track. Using your original
> "different cylinder" parity scheme, writing one sector would involve a read
> of old data, a rotational delay to write new data, a seek to the parity
> track plus rotational delay to old parity, read old parity, and then a
> rotational delay to write new parity.
It wasn't that long ago - less than a decade - when drives with
multiple heads per surface ruled the earth. (Well, at least the
part of the earth populated by minis and mainframes.) Cleverly
laying out the file systems on these drives did eliminate a
huge fraction of seeks. It'd be even easier to lay out an
efficient "RAID on a single drive" scheme.
Multiple heads per platter disappeared in the never-ending quest
for lower seek times and lower-inertia arms.
Not that they really would contribute to the mythical
"RAID in a single drive" in any event. In my experience, 90%
of disk failures are not "bad block here, bad block there" but
catastrophic failures of either the mechanics or the electronics.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
------------------------------
From: Hugh Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Mouse Problems in Linux
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:17:09 -0500
Mike Power wrote:
>
> Check out /etc/rc.d/rc.local
>
> comment out the gpm
> echo 'running gpm..."
> gpm -R -m /dev/mouse -t bare
>
> Xwindows does not like gpm running.
> this had me stuck for a while, it would find the mouse but it would not move
> . i killed the gpm process and xwindows worked great so i removed it from
> the startup.
That's interesting. I'm running X right now with a 3-button mouse;
"ps -aux|grep gpm RET" returns: "root 286 0.0 0.7 752
348 a0 S 21:04 0:00 gpm -t MouseSystems", which indicates that
gpm is running on my system.
Although I've had some trouble with the mouse in X when it wasn't
configured properly, I got this straightened out with the help of
the 3-button mouse mini-howto.
So, in my case, I haven't experienced a conflict between X and gpm.
Cheers!
--
Hugh Lawson
Greensboro, North Carolina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Herbert)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.arch.storage,alt.os.linux,comp.periphs
Subject: Re: Same Disk RAID and Mirroring
Date: 1 Feb 1999 19:29:50 -0800
Malcolm Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
>Hmmm... the cheapest for what? If you exclude tape as being "serial only",
>it appears that CD-R costs around $2.00 / GB these days, once you've paid
>for your drive. Amortizing the burner across 100GB, you get a cost of
>roughly $5/GB. SPARQ costs $40 / GB, JAZ and SYJET rather more.
>And regular PC disk drives cost $21 / GB... and come in sizes an order of
>magnitude better than the other disk technologies!
It's not unfair to note that for many applications, it's cheaper and faster
to back up to IDE hard drives than to a DLT tape*. I'm half wondering how
long it will take for someone to start shipping an encapsulated IDE
drive + host adapter box with SCSI and/or 100BT/GBT ether interfaces...
[For example: 2 onsite fulls, one offsite full, two volumes with alternating
day incrementals, for a 50 GB database... DLT-7K is $4,000 for the set
of drive plus tapes, but a PC and 5 IDE hard drives could be as cheap
as $2k. Factor in another thousand for the custom drive encapsulation
etc etc and it's still 25% cheaper, and a lot lot faster...]
-george william herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: modelines help
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:59:51 -0500
greetings all,
i've got an NEC Multisync 3D monitor that's spec'd by NEC to run at 70Hz
at 800x600 (ouch) & 87Hz interlaced at 1024x768. the vsync range is 50Hz
to 90Hz & the hsync is from 15.5 kHz to 37 kHz. my problem is that the
modeline that runs under X is running at 60Hz & according to the comment
line it's all i can hope to get :
# 800x600 @ 60 Hz, 37.8 kHz hsync
Modeline "800x600" 40 800 840 968 1056 600 601 605 628
+hsync +vsync
all other higher modelines require higher hsync freqs. (the next one up
needs hsync 48.0 kHz & will run at 72Hz). the question i have is is there
any way to create a modeline for my 70Hz freq ? please take pity on my
poor eyes (60 bloody Hz is like a piledriver to the frontal lobe after
an hour of looking at the thing).
thanks for your help,
chris
Note : the video card can handle 1024x768 at 16bit so it's not the
limiting factor here - stats : RH5.2, 2.0.36, P120, 132MB RAM
University of Toronto, Canada
Office : LM249
Phone : (416) 978-0366
------------------------------
From: Blake Sobiloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: download 5.2 onto 3 1/2 disk
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:55:11 -0500
"James McBoyle - Sun Ireland - SunSoft ELC [Student]" wrote:
> yes you can d/l Linux onto floppies, I'm not sure about RedHat (haven't tried)
> but I do know that both the Slakware and Debian distributions can be
> downloaded onto floppy disks, so I would have thought RedHat would have also
> done this.
Yeah, you could try and do that, but it'd be very painful. It's better
to try and load via the network. Boot your laptop from the boot disk,
start the install program, and install via FTP or NFS.
Obviously this won't work too well if your laptop doesn't have a network
card...
--
Blake Sobiloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Higher Education Consulting
KPMG LLP
Washington, DC
------------------------------
From: "David A. Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Video Card For XF86 ??
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:29:51 -0500
Byungjik;
I use the Matrox G200 under both NT and Linux, like it alot. The nice
thing about this card is the excellent performance and the guality of
output. There certainly are faster cards out there, but the overall
quality of this card is hard to beat.
Been running X-windows since I got Linux. The first installation of the
driver was a little difficult but the latest version of Xfree has the driver
for this card built into the SVGA accelerator. Easy as Pie installation.
Before you go out and gett this card makesure you have Xfree set up
correctly. A config file not set up correctly can cause many problems
when trying to get X to run correctly.
Dave
ByungJik Park wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi!!
>
>I am a beginner for Linux.
>I installed RedHat5.2 to My Pentium PC Box two months ago.
>But I can not use X-Windows for 800*600 or higher resolution mode but
>basic VGA16.
>So I am going to buy another Video Card suitable fo X-window.
>
>Please inform me the best Video Card List.
>
>PreThank you.. Regards... Bye...
>
>P.S) My English is not good. Please understand..
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Declan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xvidtune
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:42:08 -0500
I've heard that 1) using xvidtune improperly (ie not paying attention to
settings) can damage your monitor. I also heard that 2) if you are using
xvidtune on a multisync montor that no damage can be done. Can anyonw add to
this? Im a little wary of fine tuning my monitor with xvidtune or by hand or
whatever as i dont really want to blow up my monitor. any suggestions?
-dec
------------------------------
From: Kyle Gonzales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Hard Drive install for Red Hat 5.2 won't WORK!!!
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 20:30:38 -0500
I tried to do a hard drive install for RH5.2, following every
instruction in my manuals and on the Red Hat web site. I get to where
it asks for the location of the RedHat/RPMS & RedHat/base directories.
No matter where I put it, it says, "Location [whatever] does not appear
to contain a Red Hat installation tree." Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks
Kyle Gonzales
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 16:37:54 -0800
From: Brian Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Installing a DPT RAID controller
Hello,
I have a Linux 2.0.33 system using 2 ea fast/wide scsi drives of the
name make/model (IBM DDRS-34560W). One drive has the OS and the data,
the other is completely empty. I've just purchased a DPT 2144UW SCSI
adapter with the raid module, and am preparing to install it in the
Linux box.
My question: can I install the adapter, mirroring the 2nd (empty) drive
against the existing Linux drive? The documentation indicates I should
install the OS from scratch but I'd like to avoid that if at all
possible.
Any suggestions greatly appreciated!
Sincerely, Brian Rankin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.os2.setup.misc,comp.os.os2.comm,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: 3COM sells crippled modems (was 3COM "support" (was: any voice
capable/fax modem software for use in warp4?))
Date: 2 Feb 1999 04:03:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:42:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee) wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >
>> >On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:38:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee) wrote:
>> >> >Too fregging bad, I've had the joy of using X2 for almost a year...
With
>> >> >free upgrades of course...
>> >
>> >> How would this help someone who's ISP didn't support X2?!?
>> >
>> >Did you shop for an ISP the same way you shop for modems? My ISP
>> >supported X2 right out of the gate.
>>
>> Why bother? I wasn't about to dump my ISP just because they choose not to
>> support X2.
>
>The point is - WHY did they choose not to support X2, when so many
>other ISP's jumped right on it. I chose my ISP based on its good track
>record of service and support, and they have yet to disappoint me.
There were a number of reasons, the most important one was compatability.
Most of the ISP users were/are using v.90/56k flex modems, not USR X2
modems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
