Linux-Hardware Digest #577, Volume #10 Thu, 24 Jun 99 13:13:40 EDT
Contents:
Re: modem question (killbill)
MUST I have network card to connect to ISP? (William Horton)
Re: SiS 530 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: TNT2 or 3dfx Voodoo3?... ("Chad Dale")
Cirque Glidepad ("John Smith")
Linux Raid problem ("richard")
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
Re: advanced question on mkfs and use of -c (Greg Leblanc)
Re: cdrom mount error: kernel does not recognize /dev/hdc as a valid (tom bergerson)
Re: BusLogic device busy (Eric Potter)
Re: RAID for Linux / Unix apps (Greg Leblanc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: killbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: modem question
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:10:34 GMT
In article <7kt66t$o36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Nikola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am runing Win98 with V.90 modem with rocwell chipset.
> Can this modem work under linux.
>
> Thank's!
You have not specified enough information.
The problem is that a unfortunately large percentage of new modems are
being made as "winmodems". These are really only half the necessary
hardware to be a modem, and require software to use your host CPU to
emulate the missing pieces.
There is no reason Linux cannot perform this same role, but there is no
standard for interfacing between different brands of "win modems", and
the manufacturers are not releasing much detailed information about
their modems, and so writing drivers to support them is very hard, with
a low payoff. Thus, none (that I know of) are supported.
Here are some tips that you might have a winmodem.
1) Under win9x system properties device list, you see HCF modem
enumerator or something about HSP.
2) The modem is PCI. Currently, I do not believe there is a PCI modem
that is not a winmodem. There is no reason there could not be a normal
modem that is a pci card, but no one has built one.
3) The modem is described as "for windows only", or states that it
requires a pentium 1xx or higher cpu. A real modem can be put on
anything (including 486's). A winmodem requires quite a bit of CPU
power to work.
There is a great page out there that lists many modems, and indicates if
they are winmodems or not...
http://www.o2.net/~gromitkc/winmodem.html
Everything you need to know is ther.
Bill
--
Bil Kilgallon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--"I believe, what I believe, has made me what I am. I did not make
it, It is making me, it is the very truth of God, not the invention
of any man". Rich Mullins, quoting G.K. Chesterton.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Horton)
Subject: MUST I have network card to connect to ISP?
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:52:55 GMT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,redhat.config
Subject: Re: SiS 530
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:56:05 GMT
In article <7kpree$p41$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a Sis 530, my computer is a brand new Compaq 5340 presario.
I've
> read some replies to other questions such as this and If you give me
> information to edit a text file can you tell me how to do that outside
of
> X Windows and how to get to it. I don't really know anything about
> linux. Using the Svga_server I have acheived X windows but when It
came
> up is was only like 320*200. That was no good because just the start
menu
> took up the whole screen. I have Redhat 5.2, I don't have internet,
and I
> would really apreciate it if someone could tell me how to get through
this
> problem or if there is like a compatible card driver I could say I
have or
> if there is any configuration that could work for me. I have been
sweating
> over this for sometime. If you reply to this message, give your
address
> (optional)and I assure you I will send to you a cash reward, because I
> really really really!!!!!!!!!!!! need!!!!! help with this!!!!!
>
> ------------------ Posted via SearchLinux ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
>
OK, I finally seem to have a working X-Windows on my brand new Compaq
Presario 5176 (SiS 530 chipset) with SuSE 6.1.
Btw, the documentation coming with the Compaq was very frustrating, I
spent hours on the net getting all the info together.
You have to get the new SiS530 X-server at SuSE (I found it surfing from
the Xfree86-site). I downloaded it with Win98, mounted the DOS-partition
on which it was located and did:
rpm -i xsis.rpm
You may get an error concerning the XSVGA-server. I removed it and then
later put it back.
Then I ran xf86config and chose the SiS 6326 chipset, then i did startx.
The screen was crappy and the mousepointer was i big white rectangle.
So I fiddled a bit with the XF86Config-file and added in the
device-section:
Option "sw_cursor"
Option "fast_vram"
Now I have a mousepointer and a readable screen.
I still have a screen that is bigger than the
monitor?
Anyone knows how to fix this?
Btw, i'm at absolute newbie at this, so please don't ask me any
questions which emphasize my ignorance!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Dale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TNT2 or 3dfx Voodoo3?...
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:13:02 GMT
Uhm, for Linux I would say the Voodoo3. Much better support under Linux than
has NVidia. Plus, V3 will play Quake3. If you are going to play games under
Win98 only though, I would go with the TNT2 becuase it has much nicer 3D
image quality.
J. Blair wrote in message ...
>what's the better bet for linux? a 16MB TNT2 or a 16MB Voodoo3? i'm about
>to buy a computer, and i don't know what video card to put into it. i dual
>boot with winblows98, too.
>thanks,
>jimmy
>
>
------------------------------
From: "John Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Cirque Glidepad
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:40:40 GMT
Hi Everybody,
I just got a Cirque glidepad as a replacement for my mouse. Does anybody
know of a driver, or how to program one, or tell how one writes device
drivers?
--
Toto
------------------------------
From: "richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Raid problem
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:34:41 +0100
I have inherited a Linux system with a RAID device
on bootup I get the message:
md:09:00 raidarray not clean -run ckraid
an error occurred during RAID startup
when I run ckraid it says it is o.k.
when I try to mount the RAID it says it is not running!
any suggestions please????????????
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:42:42 -0700
Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:12:11 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:08:07 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:56:06 -0700, Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >> >[deletia]
> > >> [deletia]
> > >> >> GOD DAMN! Are you telling us you have to be a bloody
> > >> >> MCSE to deal with Windows problems. Arguement's done
> > >> >> right there...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Windows cabal conceeds.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [deletia]
> > >> >>
> > >> [deletia]
> > >> > If you look at sales, Windows outsells Linux by a wide margin. (I think we
> > >> >can all concede that.) The fact that a specific company that sells Unix boxes
> > >> >was mentioned lends credence to the point that you have to look pretty hard to
> > >> >find an off the shelf Unix box. In most situations, if a user is going to be
> > >>
> > >> No. One must merely exercise some care when one is selecting
> > >> hardware. This is much like the burden to avoid the like of
> > >> ATI and their 'poor drivers'. The net effect is still the same.
> > >> The so called Windows advantage can evaporate at any time if
> > >> you're unlucky.
> > >
> > >In the first place, you need to be a *lot* more unlucky to find a company with a
>bad
> > >Windows driver. And for the record, I didn't claim that ATI made "poor drivers"
>in
> >
> > Someone likes making that excuse for ATI.
> >
> > [deletia]
> >
> > 'Luck' simply isn't good enough. It doesn't matter if the
> > odds are better. The potential for disaster is still there.
> > The consumer can, and should demand better than that and
> > allow to flourish those vendors that can actually deliver.
> >
>
> I agree with you there. If I had been the person with the bad ATI drivers, I
>probably
> would have taken the card back and gotten another one.
>
> >
> > For 'ease', consumer-I-wanna-plug-it-in-like-a-toaster
> > kinda ease, a kludge clone just won't do. They're built
> > to be cheap and flexible, not reliable and easy.
> >
>
> Well, if you buy an off-the-shelf computer (say a Dell or a Compaq or such, you
>definitely
> get a lot more ease of use than something you patch together yourself. That's for
>sure.
> Hey, we're two for two in agreement so far. :)
>
> >
> > The ease of Windows is more myth and lots of conditioning
> > than reality. It's time to dump both MS OSes and PC Clones.
> >
>
> I can agree with you so far as day-to-day operation of the PC goes. One of the
>reasons I
> started the Linux migration was all the headaches dealing with Windows crashes,
>sluggish
> performance, etc. I still say that for just installing, if you put a neophyte in
>front of
> both a Linux and an NT box, they'll be a lot less confused and hassled going through
>an NT
> install. (The same goes for 95, but I've never installed 98, so I can't speak to it
> directly.) Of course, part of the simplicity lies in the fact that a lot of
>decisions are
> taken away from the user. That can be a bad thing, and lead to other hassles, so
>it's not
> necessarily good, just simpler. The best system would provide simple explanations
>for
> complex things that are going on. (I would have appreciated Help menus along with
>the
> installation of Red Hat, for example.)
>
Redhat distro of Linux is JUNK. RH is following M$'s footsteps.
Especially with 5.2. I suspect they rushed 5.2 out so they can make
their book looks good for the IPO. Then rush 6.0 out for some quick bug
fixes for 5.2, and messed 6.0 up as well in all the rush-rush
situations.
SuSE distro of Linux is much better in the ease of installation, better
developed and planned. Everything works right out of the box. Can Redhat
and Windoze say that?
But I've found FreeBSD really have docuements that are up to date,
readable and easy to understand,
and actually you can find what you want to know from it. Linux's
docuement is kind of chaotic in its currennt stage, but still, Windoze
is in the same boat. If you want to know some finer details in Windows,
you need to read a couple of 1,000+ pages books. Same like Linux, or
Unix.
To sum it up. As one of my friend said (he LOVES Windoze, because he's a
system consultant and admin.): "Windoze is great, the more problem, the
better for me, the more problems Windoze have, the more money I'll
make..."
Alex Lam.
> >
> > --
> >
> > It helps the car, in terms of end user complexity and engineering,
> > that a car is not expected to suddenly become wood chipper at some |||
> > arbitrary point as it's rolling down the road. / | \
> >
> > Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
*If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
domain has been forged many times.
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: Greg Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: advanced question on mkfs and use of -c
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 06:13:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Yves Bellefeuille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Jun 1999, Kyle Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1) Is "-c" (map out bad blocks) any use with (E)IDE hard disks? I
read
> > one thing that said it wasn't, because the drive does it. I wander
if
> > the mkfs tests might be more comprehensive than the drive's and so
> > should be done even though it adds much time to mkfs.
>
> I tried to answer by E-mail, but your address is incorrect.
>
> Please post again, using your real E-mail address. Sorry, but I'm
> against address munging. I hate spam as much as you do, but
transferring
> the problem to me isn't the solution.
Get with the program, dude! This is a news group, meant for SHARING
knowledge. POST your reply so that more than just one person can get
benefit from it. I don't put a false address down unless I tell people
how to fix it, but since he didn't request an email reply, send it to
the group!
Greg
>
> --
> Yves Bellefeuille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ottawa, Canada
> Francais / English / Esperanto
> Maintainer, Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html
>
--
It's pronounced "sexy" not "scuzzy"!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: tom bergerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cdrom mount error: kernel does not recognize /dev/hdc as a valid
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:36:38 -0500
i have fixed the problem. with apologies to mr. bumby, it turns out that
the acer 685a 8x cdrom was the problem. i bought a toshiba 6502b 40x atapi
cdrom and put it in and it mounts normally, reads data cds and plays audio
cds. i went so far as to call acer to verify that their cdrom was a fully
atapi compliant unit and they assured me that it was. however, on a
motherboard with their own chipset (ali or acer labs inc 15x3 on an asus
p5a motherboard) the old 8x cdrom does not register as a valid block
device, even after i recompiled my kernel with support for their chipset,
whereas the toshiba does. eureka!
tom bergerson
btw, thanks to all who replied.
tom bergerson wrote:
> when i try to mount (mount -t iso9660 /dev/hdc /mnt/cdrom) my Acer 685A
> 8x cdrom, i get the following error:
>
> The kernel does not recognize /dev/hdc as a block device (maybe 'insmod
> driver'?)
>
> my setup is Asus P5a with ali 15x3 chipset on rh 6.0 in order to load
> from the cdrom when installing i passed the following to boot: linux
> hdc=cdrom. so install worked. OK so i recompiled the kernel, version
> 2.2.9, and applied the ide patch at www.dyer.vanderbilt.edu to get the
> kernel to "see" my chipset correctly. so now it sees the chipset and
> performance is better. i had to remove the linux hdc=cdrom bit from
> lilo otherwise it wouldnt boot at all, and in any event, with the new
> ali chipset support, the system should find the cdrom on its own.
>
> of course in the block devices section of xconfig i compiled in
>
> Normal PC Floppy disk support
> Enhanced IDE/MFM/RLL disk ... support
> Include IDE/ATA-2 DISK support
> Include ide/atapi cdrom support
> ...
> Generic PCI IDE chipset support
> Use DMA by default when available
> ALI M15x3 chipset support
>
> i do not really want to use SCSI emulation, and i do not believe it
> should be necessary since the ACER 685A is a standard IDE/ATAPI drive.
> Obviously, the error is inviting me to try a driver module. should this
> be necessary? wWhat am i missing here?
>
> tom bergerson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Potter)
Subject: Re: BusLogic device busy
Date: 24 Jun 1999 16:26:24 GMT
Tom Dye enlightened this group thus:
> Hello all,
>
> I recently added a BusLogic BT950 scsi adapter and a Yamaha CDRW to my
> RedHat 5.1 box. Everything works fine except ... on cold boot the
> buslogic module doesn't load, complaining that a device is busy. If I
> follow this with a warm boot, everything works.
>
> I don't use the CDRW very often, so can live with the boot/reboot routine
> when I want to use it. But, something in me likes to have everything
> right all of the time (sigh) and I was wondering if someone might know how
> I could make things work on a cold boot.
>
> Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.
>
> Tom
The first thing I would try is to compile a monolithic kernel, i.e. without any
modules.
>
> --
> Thomas S. Dye, Ph.D. http://www.lava.net/~tdye
>Home: 813 16th Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii 96816. Voice (808) 734-2087.
>Work: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., 2081 Young St.,
> Honolulu, Hawaii 96826. Voice (808) 946-2548; Fax 943-0716.
------------------------------
From: Greg Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RAID for Linux / Unix apps
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 06:03:12 GMT
Let's all take a deep breath for a second and think about this...
Scenario One (1):
PCI based RAID controller:
Let's say it has three chanels, each with 5 drives? Let's call them U2W
chanels and drives, and say that 5 drives can deliver the full 80MB/sec
over U2W. That times three is a total of 240MB/sec. The PCI bus will
be able to handle about 133MB/sec of this unless you're using a new PCI
bus (64 BIT/66MHz PCI). So this way we're getting 133MB/sec from our
raid set.
Scenario Two (2):
SCSI to SCSI RAID controler.
You have a PCI SCSI card (U2W) that can deliver 80MB/sec on it's ONE
channel. You have your external RAID enclosure with the same 15 drives
in it, and the same three chanel RAID controler. However, you can only
get 80MB/sec through the cable back to the PCI/SCSI adapter in the
server.
That's why SCSI-SCSI raid is slower. I'll be the first to admit it, but
who cares? In order for this to make any difference to you, you have to
have something along the lines on a Sun Enterprise server, or something
from IBM. Nothing else is going to be able to handle that kind of data
transfers in the first place. Is this a good enough example for
everybody? Just think about this a bit before you reply telling me what
a fool I am, thanks,
Greg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Frisch) wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:52:28 GMT, bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >here's my thinking: pci is a much higher bandwidth channel than say
> >scsi3. if you pump data thru pci directly to a raid card, then that
> >card writes (quickly) to a raid array several times faster than a
> >single scsi3 channel (since it can use several scsi drives and, in
>
> You're still limited by the speed of the SCSI bus whether you're
feeding
> the RAID array from the PCI bus or a SCSI channel.
>
> >scenarios, so that cancels out. you're left with
> >cpu->pci->scsi->scsi-> or cpu->pci->raid. clearly the latter has the
> >potential to be faster.
>
> I beg to differ. There should be no performance increase over using a
PCI
> based RAID controller compared with a SCSI-SCSI RAID controller (all
> things being equal with the RAID controller's CPU being equally
powered in
> both scenarios).
>
> Mike.
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Mike Frisch Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Northstar Technologies WWW: http://saturn.tlug.org/~mfrisch
> Newmarket, Ontario, CANADA
> ======================================================================
>
--
It's pronounced "sexy" not "scuzzy"!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
