Linux-Hardware Digest #693, Volume #10 Wed, 7 Jul 99 13:13:35 EDT
Contents:
Re: Using two LNE100TX NICs, adapter module fails? (That Whiley Marm0t)
Re: Linux and Maxtor hard drives? (Roy Grimm)
Re: Where to purchase Linux modems? (Roy Grimm)
Re: Multiprocessing for Webserver using Apache/JServ with Servlets (Jimmie Houchin)
CD-ROM disk changer: error on first access to drive ("Steve Snyder")
OFFTOPIC: Cost/Performance SCSI/IDE (John McKown)
Re: Rackmount cases (Alex Lam)
TV Card ("Ed Russell")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Ken Arromdee)
Diamond Supra Express 56i Modem (Mark Douthwaite)
Dell docking station problems? (Wayne Mueller)
Can we write to NTFS? ("David Murray")
SbLive Linux drivers and RH 6.0 ("Russell E. Smith")
laser-printer for linux (Felix Natter)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Jeffrey Karp)
Re: Let's build a perfect Wintel-free PC (Ludovic Hirlimann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: That Whiley Marm0t <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Using two LNE100TX NICs, adapter module fails?
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:08:26 GMT
If you haven't already obtained it, get the latest Tulip.c driver:
http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/tulip.html
Follow the directions at the tail of the file for compiling. Place the
object in your module directory and you should be set. I had the same
problem (with just one card) and this solution worked for me.
Good luck,
Charles
In article <7lunev$3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
James Dekorse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is probably a dumb question, but I just got a Linksys LNE100TX
NIC
> as a replacement for an old card that died. I can't seem to get it to
> work.
>
> Does any one know which drivers/modules I should be using?
>
> specs:
>
> Linksys LNE100TX
> LC82c115
> C9914
> T4023702
> 37BDX
>
> 32bit PCI, busmaster, 3.5W, 2.5 oz
>
> Thanks for any help/suggestions.
>
> jim
>
> mnip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : I've used Linksys LNE100TX NICs for ages, and now that I'm starting
to use
> : Linux, I'm having trouble getting my machine with two of these cards
to
> : start its ethN modules. The cards don't have any IRQ conflicts, they
work in
> : other OS', and this is a BX6r2 motherboard. The Linux distro is RH6,
no
> : patches yet. One NIC is a static IP on my LAN, the other is for a
pure DHCP
> : cablemodem (but I still plug in the static IP leased every morning
with NT4,
> : at least until I get these cards working under linux).
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Roy Grimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Maxtor hard drives?
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:38:43 -0500
Geoff Stanbury wrote:
>
> Hi, I'm wondering if Maxtor IDE hard drives work with Linux. See, I
> was about to buy a new hard drive today - a Maxtor 17.0 gigabyte IDE -
> when I saw a big ugly sticker on the front of the box that said
> "Windows 95 required."
>
> After checking the system requirements, I saw something to the point
> of Windows 9x or NT being required for the usage of all hard drives
> over Something in size.
>
> How accurate is this? I mean, do Maxtor hard drives act in the same
> terrible fashion as Winmodems? Or does this sticker mean something
> more like "Only recent operating systems can handle a hard drive of
> this size, and because most of the world uses Microsoft, we'll just
> say that you need something as recent at Windows 95" ?
>
> Thanks in advance.
I think what they are saying is that you really should use the versions
of windoze that have the FAT32 available. Back in the old FAT12/FAT16
days (I hope I am remembering those right), you had access only to 32MB
and then 2.0GB partition sizes. With a 17GB drive and only 2.0GB per
partition, you'd end up having to split the hard drive up into 9
partitions. With FAT32, you can address it as one drive.
Then there is the issue of the IDE controller. Older IDE controllers
couldn't handle any drive over a certain size (I know it was somewhere
between 500 and 600 MB). With "modern" EIDE controllers, the limit has
been extended several orders of magnitude (though I don't know what it
is...) Windoze95 came out within a year or two of EIDE coming into
vogue so Maxtor may be suggesting that if you have a Windoze9X machine,
you'll probably have an EIDE controller in your system.
You should have no problems using any OS on that drive, assuming you
have a controller that can handle it. Go ahead and set up Linux on that
drive. You shouldn't have any problems with it.
Roy Grimm
------------------------------
From: Roy Grimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where to purchase Linux modems?
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:46:11 -0500
ZombieSeed wrote:
>
> I basically give up on the current modem I have (PnP). Where could I buy a
> Linux compatible modem (one with the jumpers where you set the IRQ and COM
> yourself)? Any place online?
>
> All the computer stores around here have nothing but Winmodems.
>
> Thanks in advance
Even though you may not like the idea, consider getting an external
modem. When it runs through an external COM port, you can be absolutely
sure you won't have any Winmodem type problems.
Other than that, I hear that the Diamond Supra series of modems works
under Linux (at least some of them). They're at
http://www.diamondmm.com and you can order their products directly from
them.
FWIW,
Roy Grimm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jimmie Houchin)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Multiprocessing for Webserver using Apache/JServ with Servlets
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 13:37:46 GMT
I suppose I left out pertinent information. Oops. :)
The webapp is currently under development. But based on my current
stage of analysis and design I am anticipating it being potentially
highly cpu intensive because of the large database 25-75gb+ and the
database searches.
The objects in the database will also tend to be reasonably large
probably minimally in the 15-75k+ range. There will be 2-4million+ of
these objects plus other related objects which may be larger and
greater in number.
Thanks for your reply.
Jimmie Houchin
On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:28:35 +1000, "Tony Platt"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jimmie Houchin wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Hello,
>>
>>I see lots of debate and conflicting opinions on the value of having
>>multiple processors. Many of the most reasoned posts state that it
>>depends on the application being used. So, I would like to ask about
>>my situation.
>>
>>I am building a webserver for my website. The purpose of this post is
>>to help understand and explore hardware options for the server.
>>
>>I anticipate running Linux (possibly FreeBSD, not looking for debate
>>here), Apache with JServ. The only thing running on this machine will
>>be Apache, JServ and the webapp I am developing using Servlets.
>>
>>Java is multithreaded and can use native threads which should be able
>>to access multiple processors. This will be with a JVM which uses
>>native threads.
>>
>>Other pertinent information: I will have 512mb of ram to start.
>>
>>Questions:
>>
>>Would I benefit from multiple processors?
>
>
>That naturally depends, can your (link) to the net saturate the box ???
>
>ie if you only have a small pipe into the server, probably a 486 could keep
>up.
>several Giant Flood Pipes into your server, and yep you might want to look
>at getting some nice fast hardware.
>
>Tony
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Steve Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Steve Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CD-ROM disk changer: error on first access to drive
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:23:33 GMT
I've got a problem with my IDE CD-ROM disk changer: the initial access of
the drive fails. This is on a RedHat v6.0 system running the v2.2.10
kernel on a Celeron CPU.
A different system running the same software (RH60 / 2.2.10) but with a
single-disk IDE CD-ROM driver does not show this problem. On both systems
the CD-ROM drive is on the IDE1 controller. As far as I can tell the only
variable is that the problem is seen with a CD disk changer.
The v2.2.10 kernel accurately identifies the drive as:
hdc: ATAPI 16X CD-ROM changer w/5 slots, 128kB Cache
and elsewhere as:
hdc: Nakamichi MJ-5.16, ATAPI CDROM drive
After the drive is mounted (no errors seen), I get this error on
the first attempted access:
kernel: ATAPI device hdc:
kernel: Error: Not ready -- (Sense key=0x02)
kernel: Logical unit not ready - manual intervention required -- (asc=0x04,
ascq=0x03)
kernel: The failed "Prevent/Allow Medium Removal" packet command was:
kernel: "1e 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 "
Subsequent accesses seem to work correctly.
What can I do to fix/work-around this problem? Thank you.
***** Steve Snyder *****
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John McKown)
Subject: OFFTOPIC: Cost/Performance SCSI/IDE
Date: 7 Jul 1999 00:17:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, I'm stupid. Can anyone out there explain to me why a SCSI hard drive
costs about twice as much as a similiarly sized IDE hard drive? Someone
once told me it was due to the SCSI interface being more expensive to
implement. OK. But isn't the actual hard drive (platters, heads, etc)
the same? So the cost would be "hardware"+"electronics". I can understand
the "SCSI electronics" being more expensive than the "IDE electronics".
but that would imply that difference should be about equal. For instance,
suppose an IDE drive cost is $300. $200 is "hardware" and $100 is
"IDE electronics". As similiar SCSI would be, say $500. $200 is "hardware",
because the "hardware" is nearly identical and $300 is "SCSI electronics".
But wouldn't that mean that a $600 IDE should be $500 hardware + $100
electronics. Implying that a SCSI of similiar size would be $500 hardware
+ $300 electronics = $800 total. But the SCSI generally would be closer
to $1200. What is the $400 for?
Am I all wet when I say that the drive "hardware" is nearly identical
for IDE and SCSI? (assuming the same platters & heads and RPM). Does
SCSI require superior "hardware" (platters & heads). It seems to me
that I've seem the same set of RPM values (5400, 7200, 10000). Why
would a SCSI 5400 RPM need significantly superior "hardware" than
an IDE?
Am I all wet when I say that the "electronics" for an IDE drive are
approximately the same regardless of the size of the drive? Do larger
IDE drives require significantly better IDE electronics? The same
questions for SCSI.
Note - I used the above numbers just as an example, I have NO idea
what the real breakdown is. In fact, since the price per megabyte
seems close to a straight line (except in the really large sizes), I'd
guess that the "electronics" cost is insignificant. I hate to be
negative, but it really seems, to me, that the vendors have said something
like: "We'll price IDE at $X per megabyte and SCSI at $Y per megabyte".
Even if this does not match the cost to manufacture.
Well, enough of my ranting. You may guess I want SCSI but can't afford
it.
If you can enlighten me on this, I really would like to know.
John
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rackmount cases
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:01:21 -0700
wizard wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I am looking for Rackmount cases for regular AT & ATX motherboards. I
> > have a whole whopping mess of various makes/models of PCs in my Data
> > Center. I would like to rackmount them to save space. I do not want to
> > have to buy all new computers to do this. Does anyone know where I can
> > buy such cases?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Scott
> >
> > --
> > Scott Boss
> > Atlanta Perl Mongers Fearless Leader
> > website: http://atlanta.pm.org
> > community: http://www.dejanews.com/~apm
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> Scott;
>
> Unless you find a source I don't know about, the cost of a Rack mount ATX
> case will kill this idea. In fact at todays prices you could buy brand
> new hardware. On the other hand the one industrial "desktop" case I've
> had extensive experience with wasn't worth a hill of beans. If the cost
> of floor space is so excessive that you feel you need to continue, try
> looking at hardware supplied by Industrial Computer Source. As stated
> before I don't think thier desktop case is worth the money they charge but
> give them a shot. One other company I've hasd good luck with, for
> industrial computing, is American Advantech. Not sure if they supply the
> type of case your looking for. One thing to look out for if you do go
> the rack mount route is the possiblity for drastically increased cooling
> requirements if all of thoose PCs end up in the same rack.
>
> One thing that can be suggested, that works really well for very lowcost
> solutions, is to employe the commercial wire racks that are so popular
> these days. By selecting one desktop or tower case that meets your needs
> a nice and very servicable installation can be had. The shelves on
> theese racks are adjustable and many are available on wheels. I would be
> the first to admit that they are not as space efficient as a rack but they
> are cheap and may work well with existing hardware.
>
> The story is quite different if you are buying new hardware. Here you
> can get different solutions that fit into one or two rack units. Check
> any of the Linux rags to see who offers what. I would also suggest that
> your'e not likely to get taken to the cleaners in the same manner that you
> would when buying just a case.
>
> Best of luck
> Dave
I've 5 boxes cramped into my small SOHO. My solution to save space
from my very large table is I use desk top cases with all the boxes,
then, get a stereo rack system and put all the boxes in. Instant rack
system without the high costs of computer rack cases and rack mount.
And you're not limited to the ugly looking industrial grade hardware.
Alex Lam.
--
*remove all the Xs (upper case X) if reply by e mail.
** no more M$ Windoze.
------------------------------
From: "Ed Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: TV Card
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 16:07:36 GMT
Has anyone successfully setup an Aimslabs Extreme98 Tv Card under redhat
5.2??? I am running 2.0.36 modularized kernel. I have tried to use bttv
and the patch from Aimslab's to no avail. If anyone has accomplished this
please advise me with some clues.
Cheers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 15:39:38 GMT
In article <uysY5mIy#GA.58@cpmsnbbsa03>,
Dean Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On that topic, it seems Netscape's algorithm for rendering nested tables
>>is not very smart. Not sure about IE. This could be a good
>>benchmark...heh. See how well your wiz-bang Celeron or K6-III handles
>>these:
>>
>>http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jhoward/tables/11.html (depth = 11)
>>http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jhoward/tables/12.html (depth = 12)
>>
>>These seem to be the magic numbers. 10 and below load fine, 11 took my
>>P200 30 seconds to render, I gave up on 12 after waiting a minute and a
>>half.
On a P-120 (under Windows) 12 takes around two minutes on Netscape 4. Oddly
enough, on Netscape _3_, it doesn't take more than a second or so.
--
Ken Arromdee / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"I have never seen the inside of the building at Microsoft where the top
executives hang out, but I have this fantasy that in the hallways, at regular
intervals, big red alarm boxes are bolted to the wall. Each contains a large
red button protected by a windowpane. A metal hammer dangles on a chain next
to it. Above is a big sign reading: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH IN MARKET SHARE,
BREAK GLASS." -- Neal Stephenson
------------------------------
From: Mark Douthwaite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Diamond Supra Express 56i Modem
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 17:15:09 +0100
I have a Pentium 166 MMX PC using Win 95 dual booting with Linux Red Hat
5.2. My modem is a Diamond Supra Express 56i (internal).
I have tried to configure the modem (using netcfg) but can't get it to
initialise.
I am also having problems with my PPP interface being shown as active.
Everytime I use netcfg it is shown as inactive again !
Has anyone successfully connected to the net using the same modem?
Any tips would be much appreciated.
Many thanks.
Mark Douthwaite.
------------------------------
From: Wayne Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Dell docking station problems?
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 11:12:55 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've installed Red Hat 6.0 on my Dell Latitude CPi and all is working
well. However, when I try to use my docking station and monitor the
graphics fail to start. Linux recognizes the onboard SCSI and network
adapter, but the graphics always fail when the X server attempts to
start. I've looked at "Linux on Laptops" web pages and can find nothing
concering docking stations. Anyone have thought, suggestions, or
pointers?
TIA,
Wayne
------------------------------
From: "David Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Can we write to NTFS?
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:32:10 GMT
I was thinking of making a small Linux bootable disk with NTFS compiled
into the kernel to help me make some repairs to some NT servers from a
command prompt. However, the only information I have been able to find on
the web about this so far is dated 1997 and says the driver is read-only.
So.. in newer kernels do we yet read/write access.
--DavidM
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Russell E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Russell E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SbLive Linux drivers and RH 6.0
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:36:10 -0600
I'm having a problem getting the Linux drivers for the SoundBlaster Live!
working under RedHat 6.0. I get everything set up correctly (put sblive.o
into /lib/modules/misc, and edited /etc/conf.modules to point to the drivers
correctly) but when I'm booting the system, at the line for loading the
sound drivers it tells me the module is for kernel 2.2.5 and I have 2.2.5-15
and wont load. What can I do?
--
Russell E. Smith
http://www.homerj.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Get all your hardware news at www.alereon.org
"I want to live in a world where software doesn't suck"
-- Eric S. Raymond
USERS TAKE NOTE: The address above (along with the reply addresses)
will be deleted by my server (hence, not received).
I do not wish to receive any mail from any posters
(including spam and reply's to my posts) at my email address.
------------------------------
From: Felix Natter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: laser-printer for linux
Date: 07 Jul 1999 15:51:20 +0200
Hi,
does anyone have hints for buying a laser-printer that
works well with linux ?
Right now I've got a HPDJ 660C, and I'm not happy
with the printing quality when printing from linux (gs).
Thanks,
Felix Natter
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Karp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 10:34:04 -0400
chrisv wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:31:27 -0400, Jeffrey Karp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:
> >> I mean, you want to be first in line for one of these contraptions?
>
> >That is another issue, although with that attitude, you will never
> >experience leading edge performance.
>
> Fine for you, but I think to "recommend" these unknown systems to
> others at this point in time is ridiculous. Criminal, almost. If I
> want to take a risk, fine, but I won't recommend that others do.
Everything in life is a risk. Many of the most enjoyable activities
are also the most risky. Having sex entails taking the risk of
acquiring a sexually transmitted disease, and of pregnancy.
Will you give up sex for these reasons? Okay, steps can be taken
to minimize these risks. Risk can also be minimized when building
a state of the art computer by doing extensive research, and
using a motherboard that the manufacturers recommend. Forcing
yourself to use much older, slower technology for reasons other
than monetary is not a good idea. While Intel has a track record
of releasing items with significant bugs in them, AMD has
no such track record. I would not be in a rush to buy a new Intel
product, but feel safe buying a newly released AMD product.
------------------------------
From: Ludovic Hirlimann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuiltalt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.be.help
Subject: Re: Let's build a perfect Wintel-free PC
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:18:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stanislav Kelman) wrote:
> Hello everyone!
Hi
> Anyway, in a few months I'm going to put together a Wintel-free PC,
just
> for the fun of it. Most likely, it will have to be a multi-processor
> capable AMD K7 (Athlon) based machine, unless somebody can suggest a
> better option.
Hold It right there !
You're still talking 'tel' here. the K7 is definitivly in the "intel"
world because it complies and is compatible with the 80386 architecture
(which somehow is very close to the 4004 architecture dev in the 70s).
Looking for a non wintel machine means not using Microsoft software nor
using Intel x86 processors (why didn't they pushed their i860 and so
good other processors).
You should be looking for PowerPc based machines - Mips, Arm, Alpha
based machine.
So if you wann stick with beos as your OS then you'll have to get
yourself a PowerPC based compatible machine (dont go for beboxes : two
slow, try to get a SMP machine BeOS rocks on such configuration (the
more processors the better)). The Bad Thing is Be only supports
PowerMacs (because at the time it was the PowerPC arch) and doesn't
suport new macs (PowerPC750 driven ones) so 'you'll have to get some
used hardware (look on ebay) - They could And I think they should
support Motorola made powerpc machines - they're no close from being
cheaps but they really really rocks. They don't suport them because
their is no market (and maybe motorola doesn't help them here if
Motorola would sell PPC machines (and have clones making them) with the
BeOS than BeOS would get supported on those none Intel machines. I
really think there a market but Mot and Be don't - mot thinks there's a
market for Linux for which they help kernel developers - to have beos
on these available ppc machines you'd need to firts run linnux on them
showing that there's a market for alternative hardware ! then BeOS
would have to come to such hardware market ........
Ludo
--
http://www.multimania.com/softkid
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
******************************
