Linux-Hardware Digest #325, Volume #13 Sun, 30 Jul 00 20:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity (WORLOK)
Re: HD size limit (John Jacques)
Re: HD size limit (John Jacques)
Re: hardware problems (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: hardware problems (Steve Martin)
Re: hardware problems (Steve Martin)
Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity (B'ichela)
Re: Dual NICs of same type? (Johan Kullstam)
3com 10/100 LAN Cardbus in Linux ("dsgfu")
I/O question ("Steve Riskus")
Re: HD size limit ("Gene Heskett")
Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity
Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity
Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity (WORLOK)
Re: I/O question (Dances With Crows)
ATI Rage; need Windows DVD player... (Fred)
Re: I/O question ("Steve Riskus")
buying laptop advice ("SUU H QUAN")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WORLOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:14:03 GMT
Wait a minute. How come the "def -k" command gives me this on the
drive?
/dev/sda1 99521 45447 48935 48% /scsi0
"df -m" gives me this:
/dev/sda1 97 44 48 48% /scsi0
Does THAT look correct?
---Tom
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 03:07:07 GMT, WORLOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[root@red-dwarf /root]# /sbin/fdisk -l /dev/sda
> >
> >Disk /dev/sda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 1064 cylinders
> >Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
> >
> > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> >/dev/sda1 1 1064 8546548+ 83 Linux
> Nothing wrong with your info. Linux uses some of the space for
> its housekeepking such as superblock copies. I would not quibble over
> it. In fact I would expect as much from a big drive like this. Just
> enjoy the storage room.
>
> --
>
> B'ichela
>
>
--
================================
Viva Linux!! Viva La Revoluti�n!
================================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: John Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HD size limit
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:38:07 GMT
How come they do not tell this info in the howto's?
What do you mean when you say we can't do such partitions?
Hmmm, ok each Ext2 partition is limited to what? 2 Gigs?
How many partitions can you have on a single drive? 10? Does this mean
you can only have a max of 20Gig HD for Ext2 on a single drive?
Please explain, I'm ready to purchase a new HD and want to make sure.
I'm running slackware 7.0 and kernel 2.2.16 I don't want to have to go
to a higher kernel or have to rig the OS to get it to work.
Thanks!
John
Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
>
> John Jacques wrote:
> >
> > I just searched the how to's and they say Linux should handle any size
> > hard drive witht the newer kernels, but it gives no specs.
> >
> > I found a newsgroup message saying something like 2.2.13 had a 33gig
> > limit and 2.2.16 works with 61Gig IDE HD's.
> >
> > I'm running 2.2.16 and was wondering what the limit if any there is on
> > the HD size?
> >
> > Thanks
> > John Jacques
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Well, as Cows said, 137 is the limit, on SCSI it's 2 terrabytes,
> although it's not very good to have such a large drive on ext2 (well,
> you can't do such partitions so...). An SCSI Hardware raid controller of
> 100 GB drives would be great for that purpose, with Ultra 160 you could
> easily achieve the max of 160 MB/sec
------------------------------
From: John Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HD size limit
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:46:11 GMT
Oooops, that was stupid. I know a partition can be greater than 2 Gigs:)
I was thinking file size limit.
John Jacques wrote:
>
> How come they do not tell this info in the howto's?
>
> What do you mean when you say we can't do such partitions?
> Hmmm, ok each Ext2 partition is limited to what? 2 Gigs?
> How many partitions can you have on a single drive? 10? Does this mean
> you can only have a max of 20Gig HD for Ext2 on a single drive?
>
> Please explain, I'm ready to purchase a new HD and want to make sure.
> I'm running slackware 7.0 and kernel 2.2.16 I don't want to have to go
> to a higher kernel or have to rig the OS to get it to work.
>
> Thanks!
> John
>
> Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
> >
> > John Jacques wrote:
> > >
> > > I just searched the how to's and they say Linux should handle any size
> > > hard drive witht the newer kernels, but it gives no specs.
> > >
> > > I found a newsgroup message saying something like 2.2.13 had a 33gig
> > > limit and 2.2.16 works with 61Gig IDE HD's.
> > >
> > > I'm running 2.2.16 and was wondering what the limit if any there is on
> > > the HD size?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > John Jacques
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Well, as Cows said, 137 is the limit, on SCSI it's 2 terrabytes,
> > although it's not very good to have such a large drive on ext2 (well,
> > you can't do such partitions so...). An SCSI Hardware raid controller of
> > 100 GB drives would be great for that purpose, with Ultra 160 you could
> > easily achieve the max of 160 MB/sec
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 21:02:41 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hardware problems
Joshua McAdams wrote:
>
> my home system has been running fine. the only problem I have had is that
> the system settings and time get lost when i unplug it. i replace the
> battery and the problem still occurs, but that's not the worst of it.... now
> my computer won't even start. when i turn it on, all i hear is the speaker
> letting out an awful wail and nothing happens.... has my mainboard had too
> much. it's an A-Trend 6241. I really don't know what they do when they go
> out... need help badly.
> Thanks,
> Josh
> if you send an email, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> thanks again
how many beeps does it give? Could be that you plugged in the power
conenctors the wrong way.
------------------------------
From: Steve Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hardware problems
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:23:11 GMT
Joshua McAdams wrote:
>
> my home system has been running fine. the only problem I have had is that
> the system settings and time get lost when i unplug it.
Well, my first guess would have been the CMOS battery, except that you
say
you replaced that. You did install it in the correct orientation, didn't
you
(i.e. not backwards)? Forgive me if I insult, but I've learned to ask
the
stupid questions first.
> my computer won't even start. when i turn it on, all i hear is the speaker
> letting out an awful wail and nothing happens....
I had one that did this once after I had messed with it, turned out I
had not
seated the SIMMS properly. Check that... if that's not it, you might
have
toasted the MB.
------------------------------
From: Steve Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hardware problems
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:24:40 GMT
...oh, yeah... one other thing I forgot to suggest. Make sure all
your cards are seated properly. I had another one that didn't boot
after I worked on it, turned out the video card wasn't seated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Subject: Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 16:51:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:14:03 GMT, WORLOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wait a minute. How come the "def -k" command gives me this on the
>drive?
>
>/dev/sda1 99521 45447 48935 48% /scsi0
>
>"df -m" gives me this:
>
>/dev/sda1 97 44 48 48% /scsi0
>
>
>Does THAT look correct?
Looks to me like df has a bug! Have you checked to see if
there is a newer version of df? If one does a quick mental shift, one
can read df -m as
/dev/sda1 970 440 48 48% /scsi0
Which sounds closer to right. Lets pick that 970 number apart.
the -m is refering to 1,000,000 not 1024 * 1024! Thats what I am
thinking is going on with df. I may be wrong. Speaking of the 9.1gb
beast. I can get the same drive for a nice $69. I am gonna get it and
do some tests here. Only I need some more DC6250 backup tapes first!
Lets compare df programs shall we? perhaps yours has the bugs
I mentioned above. NOTE! all of my drives are below 1gb right now
Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
/dev/sda1 315215 169943 128992 57% /
/dev/sdd1 315215 268596 30339 90% /usr
/dev/sdb1 79303 34129 41079 45% /usr/src
/dev/hda3 111926 82936 28990 74% /dos
/dev/sr0 656368 656368 0 100% /cdrom
Heres the same with the -m switch
Filesystem MB-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
/dev/sda1 307 166 125 57% /
/dev/sdd1 307 262 29 90% /usr
/dev/sdb1 77 33 40 45% /usr/src
/dev/hda3 109 81 28 74% /dos
/dev/sr0 640 640 0 100% /cdrom
Heres my version of df
df (GNU fileutils) 3.16
Mine is compiled with libc5. Running under the Linux
2.0.37pre10 kernal version on Slackware 3.9. Ya know.. I think I
better get another HD for /usr I think I will get a 9.1gb for /usr as
its obvious I am running out of room!
---
B'ichela
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Dual NICs of same type?
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 21:32:46 GMT
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manfred Bartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ' David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> '
> ' > Will two 3Com 3C905B-TX type PCI NICs play nicely together in a single
> ' > Linux box, or should I get another type of NIC for eth1?
> '
> ' I have two 3C905B in my firewall and never encountered a problem.
> '
> ' The only minor problem I can see is that you may have to figure out
> ' which one is which by either trial and error or by looking at the MAC
> ' (hardware) addresses. And, if you unplug eth0, eth1 becomes eth0....
> ' But those issues are there even if you have different NICs.
>
> Cool. Thanks, guys. I guess I'll order that second NIC then.
linux has no problems with two identical NICs.
windows (9[58] flavors at least), on the other hands, does have a
problem. both cards get set up from the driver. when you go to
configure them, you get presented with two copies of what looks like
the same thing. windows gives you no way to tell them apart. hence
you can't configure the things without a lot of pain. it's more of
user interface mistake than anything else.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "dsgfu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.periphs.pcmcia,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: 3com 10/100 LAN Cardbus in Linux
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:13:09 GMT
I'm trying to get my pcmcia network card to work in Linux. Its a 3com
Cardbus Model 3CCFE575BT. I'm installing on Linux Mandrake. I downloaded
the latest kernel-pcmcia rpm which has the module for this card
(3c575_cb.o). I don't know what to do after that. The pcmcia HOWTO talks
about installing the source and recompiling the kernel, but says nothing
about what to do if you installed from the RPM. When I boot up, pcmcia
starts up, but there are no beeps, also no beeps when i insert/remove the
card. If anyone knows what to do, please let me know.
If not to much trouble, please email at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks
------------------------------
From: "Steve Riskus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I/O question
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:26:12 -0400
im trying to configure sound on a linux box but i do not understand how to
figure out the I/O address of the sound card. Any help?
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jul 2000 18:42:47 -0500
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HD size limit
Unrot13 this;
Reply to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gene Heskett sends Greetings to Bartek Kostrzewa;
BK> John Jacques wrote:
>>
>> I just searched the how to's and they say Linux should handle any
>> size hard drive witht the newer kernels, but it gives no specs.
>>
>> I found a newsgroup message saying something like 2.2.13 had a
>> 33gig limit and 2.2.16 works with 61Gig IDE HD's.
>>
>> I'm running 2.2.16 and was wondering what the limit if any there is
>> on the HD size?
>>
>> Thanks
>> John Jacques
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BK> Well, as Cows said, 137 is the limit, on SCSI it's 2 terrabytes,
I'd assume thats with the typical driver code. I'm told that properly
written code is supposed to go all the way into the exabyte area. Not
that the drives own opsys would be compatible until such times as the
drives get that big. Several IDE drive makers, most notably MaxTor,
have historicly written the drives opsys just good enough for the
current drive, and when confronted with printouts of the erronious code,
have shrugged and replied "it works on a pc, why should we fix it?".
This was the infamous maximum sized transfer bug. Almost any other
platform except the address segmented intel cpu can cheerfully write a 2
gig file in one write operation, but intel makes you do it in 64k blocks
because its got to stop amd reload the segment register.
I'll leave it to the readers imagination to define what happens when the
drives circular buffer pointers pass each other. Its not pretty in its
effect on the file being written, and you occasionally wound up
logically formatting the drive to recover.
BK> although it's not very good to have such a large drive on ext2
BK> (well, you can't do such partitions so...). An SCSI Hardware raid
BK> controller of
BK> 100 GB drives would be great for that purpose, with Ultra 160 you
BK> could easily achieve the max of 160 MB/sec
Cheers, Gene
--
Gene Heskett, CET, UHK |Amiga A2k Zeus040, Linux @ 400mhz
email gene underscore heskett at iolinc dot net
#Amiga based X10 home automation program EZHome, see at:#
# <http://www.thirdwave.net/~jimlucia/amigahomeauto> #
ISP's please take note: My spam control policy is explicit!
#Any Class C address# involved in spamming me is added to my killfile
never to be seen again. Message will be summarily deleted without dl.
This messages reply content, but not any previously quoted material, is
� 2000 by Gene Heskett, all rights reserved.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:48:16 GMT
WORLOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wait a minute. How come the "def -k" command gives me this on the
>drive?
>
>/dev/sda1 99521 45447 48935 48% /scsi0
>
>"df -m" gives me this:
>
>/dev/sda1 97 44 48 48% /scsi0
>Does THAT look correct?
Sure.
99,251 KB / 1,024 = 96.924 MB. Rounded, that's 97MB.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:52:15 GMT
WORLOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wait a minute. How come the "def -k" command gives me this on the
>drive?
>
>/dev/sda1 99521 45447 48935 48% /scsi0
>
>"df -m" gives me this:
>
>/dev/sda1 97 44 48 48% /scsi0
>Does THAT look correct?
Sure.
99,521 KB / 1,024 = 97.188 MB. Rounded, that's 97MB.
Steve
------------------------------
From: WORLOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Seagate 9.1gb ST410800N 5.25" - wrong capacity
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:06:21 GMT
[tom@red-dwarf tom]$ df --version
df (GNU fileutils) 4.0
============
I think my df is pretty new.
===================================
I think I messed up BIGTIME. This is EMBARRASSING, but I must come
clean. To hide my error would be cowardice in the extreme. I don't
mount new disks all the time so from time to time I go daft and forget.
I was putting the mount directive in the /etc/mtab file instead of in
the /etc/fstab file (Doh!). I was wondering why upon each reboot the
mount was gone as was the line I put in the file. When the lightbulb
came on and I entered the appropriate line in fstab, the df output
cleared up.
Lookie here:
[root@red-dwarf tom]# df -m
Filesystem 1M-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 97 47 45 51% /
/dev/hda7 484 147 312 32% /home
/dev/hda6 1400 0 1329 0% /opt
/dev/hda5 2953 1414 1389 50% /usr
/dev/hda8 88 39 44 47% /var
/dev/hdc1 9574 6624 2463 73% /share
/dev/sda1 8215 0 7798 0% /scsi0
[root@red-dwarf tom]# df -k
Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 99521 48533 45849 51% /
/dev/hda7 495876 150264 320011 32% /home
/dev/hda6 1433584 20 1360740 0% /opt
/dev/hda5 3024016 1447504 1422896 50% /usr
/dev/hda8 90075 40207 45233 47% /var
/dev/hdc1 9803940 6783388 2522540 73% /share
/dev/sda1 8412364 20 7985020 0% /scsi0
[root@red-dwarf tom]#
==============
Note how /scsi0 now has a more reasonable capacity?
Man, I can't believe I did that! Thanks for all your help, though.
Does ext2 really use all that space or did I format it wrong? Notice
the mount /share, which is an EIDE 10gb disk. It didn't seem to take as
much of a loss as the 9.1gb scsi disk did.
BTW, these Seagate 5.25" monsters are HUGE! The machine I put it in,
Red-Dwarf, has a full tower, and I luckily had 2 5.25" bays open where I
could mount the sucker. I have another one that I am trying to figure
out how to shoehorn into a machine. I was thinking about an external
box, but those cost more money and require their own power.
Another thing. How much use do you think I will get out of a refurb
like this?
Thanks,
Tom
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:14:03 GMT, WORLOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Wait a minute. How come the "def -k" command gives me this on the
> >drive?
> >
> >/dev/sda1 99521 45447 48935 48% /scsi0
> >
> >"df -m" gives me this:
> >
> >/dev/sda1 97 44 48 48% /scsi0
> >
> >
> >Does THAT look correct?
> Looks to me like df has a bug! Have you checked to see if
> there is a newer version of df? If one does a quick mental shift, one
> can read df -m as
> /dev/sda1 970 440 48 48% /scsi0
> Which sounds closer to right. Lets pick that 970 number apart.
> the -m is refering to 1,000,000 not 1024 * 1024! Thats what I am
> thinking is going on with df. I may be wrong. Speaking of the 9.1gb
> beast. I can get the same drive for a nice $69. I am gonna get it and
> do some tests here. Only I need some more DC6250 backup tapes first!
> Lets compare df programs shall we? perhaps yours has the bugs
> I mentioned above. NOTE! all of my drives are below 1gb right now
>
> Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/sda1 315215 169943 128992 57% /
> /dev/sdd1 315215 268596 30339 90% /usr
> /dev/sdb1 79303 34129 41079 45% /usr/src
> /dev/hda3 111926 82936 28990 74% /dos
> /dev/sr0 656368 656368 0 100% /cdrom
> Heres the same with the -m switch
>
> Filesystem MB-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/sda1 307 166 125 57% /
> /dev/sdd1 307 262 29 90% /usr
> /dev/sdb1 77 33 40 45% /usr/src
> /dev/hda3 109 81 28 74% /dos
> /dev/sr0 640 640 0 100% /cdrom
> Heres my version of df
>
> df (GNU fileutils) 3.16
> Mine is compiled with libc5. Running under the Linux
> 2.0.37pre10 kernal version on Slackware 3.9. Ya know.. I think I
> better get another HD for /usr I think I will get a 9.1gb for /usr as
> its obvious I am running out of room!
>
> ---
>
> B'ichela
>
>
--
================================
Viva Linux!! Viva La Revoluti�n!
================================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: I/O question
Date: 30 Jul 2000 23:24:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:26:12 -0400, Steve Riskus wrote:
>im trying to configure sound on a linux box but i do not understand how to
>figure out the I/O address of the sound card. Any help?
Next time, post the exact make and model of your sound card, and then
people have an easier time helping you. Anyway, if you're using RedHat
or Mandrake, run "sndconfig" as root. If not, see the first sentence
and do what it tells you to. I suppose you can check the sound card's
information in the Device Mangler of Lose9x, but that often lies.
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Tyranny is always better organized
http://www.brainbench.com / than freedom.
=============================/ ==Charles Peguy
------------------------------
From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ATI Rage; need Windows DVD player...
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:39:42 -0500
ATi are weasels; I bought a Rage Fury 128, and sent the coupon and
requested and requested the DVDPlayer software, yet they never came
through. Can someone EMail me a copy?
Thanks a million...
<used to be an ATi customer>
Fred Farleigh
------------------------------
From: "Steve Riskus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I/O question
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:47:11 -0400
Its a ensoniq sounscape vivo wav table card or something like that.. I am
using Caldera...
"Steve Riskus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CX1h5.5589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> im trying to configure sound on a linux box but i do not understand how to
> figure out the I/O address of the sound card. Any help?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "SUU H QUAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: buying laptop advice
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 16:46:44 -0700
I would like to get advice from the experts.
I'm a clearcase consultant, working mostly on Unix, sometimes on NT.
I would like to buy a laptop (notebook) that can run Linux and NT (not dual
boot) the same time.
I sollicite any advise you can give me, since I have never had a laptop
nor any play time with Linux.
I live in the San Jose area. If there are any store that sell a
pre-installed laptop, I'd buy it.
If not, I'm willing to do a little hardware/software installation, but I'll
try to keep it at a minimum.
My wish list:
>= 128Mb memory
14 or 15 inch TFT screen
>= 8 gigs of disk space
3.5 inch Floppy drive
DVD drive
I'll use some wireless modem to be decided (Sprint or Ricochet)
Thanks in advance
Suu Quan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
