Linux-Hardware Digest #364, Volume #14 Sun, 18 Feb 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux drivers for Creative Ensoniq AudioPCI sound card (Scott Alfter)
Re: Should I abandon SCSI? ("Ron Reaugh")
Re: Can't get CD-RW working under RH 7.0 (Dances With Crows)
Re: Problem with display adapter in X Windows (Mark Post)
Re: Can't get CD-RW working under RH 7.0 ("Sean Murphy")
Re: Can't get CD-RW working under RH 7.0 ("Sean Murphy")
Re: new scsi drive woes (Matt Garman)
Re: Should I abandon SCSI? (jtnews)
Re: new scsi drive woes (Bernd Huebenett)
Re: Tekram DC-390U3W isn't recognized at boot (Markus Kossmann)
Re: Should I abandon SCSI? ("Ron Reaugh")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Alfter)
Subject: Re: Linux drivers for Creative Ensoniq AudioPCI sound card
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:15:29 -0000
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm looking for these drivers.
They're in the kernel; your distribution might already have them compiled as
modules. Check /proc/pci to see which of the three AudioPCI chips your card
uses (ES1370 for older cards, ES1371 or ES1373 for newer cards) and edit
/etc/modules.conf to load the appropriate driver (es1370 or es1371; the
latter also covers the 1373). If the modules aren't present in
/lib/modules/<kernel-version>/kernel/drivers/sound, you'll need to recompile
the kernel with the appropriate driver enabled (as either a module or
compiled into the kernel; it makes no difference).
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull number for email address)
\_^_/ http://salfter.dyndns.org
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6jzDHVgTKos01OwkRAkSaAKCB7XPgoCP0kqRPOeV9oxBqd2Kf8ACePGHO
s3B+Acujkvz5yNZLaJd24Sg=
=kYj8
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Ron Reaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: Should I abandon SCSI?
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:44:42 GMT
Stuffed Crust wrote in message <96n8oi$43d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>No, it is significantly less reliable than even a single disk.
>> Nope.
>>>much exactly half as reliable.
>> Twice small is still small.
>> Yep, but for small numbers the likelihood of failure is still small.
>
>*shrug*
>
>Raid-0 and reliability:
>
>Instead of loosing everything on your disk when one dies, you loose
>everything on all disks when one dies. Twice nothing is still nothing.
>
>Which is why if your data is of any importance at all, you won't trust it
>to a RAID0.
Nope, there's nothing logical about that assertion. Backup just like you
would for a single HD.
> RAID1 is the minimum, and even then you should make regular
>backups onto something physically seperate.
Yep, the same backups that you needed already. So what did the RAID 1 buy
you really?
>If RELIABILITY is a criterion, then RAID-0 is flat out.
For mission critical cases then yes and average hardware configurations are
generally out also. On Apollo they had I think 5 entire redundant systems.
Back to reality on earth and single user Wintel workstation usage where RAID
0 works just fine in a vast majority of cases when appropriate backups are
kept.
>RAID0+1 would work though... but if you're going to throw that many disks
>at it, you might as well go to RAID-5.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: Can't get CD-RW working under RH 7.0
Date: 18 Feb 2001 02:51:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:13:39 GMT, Sean Murphy staggered into the Black
Sun and said:
>I'm trying to get my Plextor W8/4/32A working under my RH 7.0 and am
>First, I'm using the kernel shipped with RH 7.0. I didn't recompile it
>or anything and the FAQ's give the impression that I shouldn't have to.
>My system has a hard drive on ide 0, master.
>The Plextor CD-RW is on ide 1, master.
>A Creative Labs CD-ROM is on ide1, slave.
>
>Using the setup described in both FAQ's I've listed above, here is how my
>/etc/modules.conf looks:
>----
[snip]
> options ide-cd ignore=hdc
> pre-install ide-scsi modprobe ide-cd
How about adding "ignore=hdd" there, too? There is no reason to have
ide-cd loading at all, ever, with your setup. Hmm, "alias ide-cd off"?
[snip]
>and finally, cdrecord -scanbus reports the following:
>----
>cdrecord: Warning: controller returns wrong size for CD capabilities page.
> 0,0,0 0) 'CREATIVE' 'CD4831E TS030808' '1.00' Removable CD-ROM
> 0,1,0 1) *
> 0,2,0 2) *
> 0,3,0 3) *
> 0,4,0 4) *
> 0,5,0 5) *
> 0,6,0 6) *
> 0,7,0 7) *
>----
>
>So my system seems to only be seeing my CD-ROM and not the RW drive.
>Anyone have any ideas? I'm a little confused by what appears to be
>conflicting methods in the different FAQ's, so I don't even understand if
>I should be setting both CD drives for ide-scsi, or not.
Yes, both. It can be problematic if you try to use ide-cd on /dev/hdd
and ide-scsi emulation on /dev/hdc. The general rule is if one IDE
device on a channel is using ide-scsi emulation, the other one should be
using it as well. Can the Plextor be seen on /dev/hdc ? If so, ide-cd
is grabbing the drive. The best thing to do would be to get rid of
ide-cd completely; you don't need it with your setup.
It might be a long shot, but check the jumper settings too. Most
CD-ROMs ship jumpered as "master", and if both devices are jumpered as
master, they won't play well together. And if the BIOS is set to allow
UDMA on the second IDE interface, try to disable that--some CD-ROMs
mistakenly report that they can handle UDMA when they can't, and no
CD-ROM goes fast enough to require UDMA. HTH,
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Workin' in a code mine, hittin' Ctrl-Alt
http://www.brainbench.com / Workin' in a code mine, whoops!
=============================/ I hit a seg fault....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Post)
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,jaring.os.linux,linux.dev.svgalib,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Problem with display adapter in X Windows
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:52:53 GMT
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:55:43 -0800, "T-roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you are running X, you can see from the following list that your card is
>not supported: http://www.xfree86.org/cardlist.html .
The only problem is that page hasn't been updated for six months. A lot has
changed since then.
Mark Post
Postmodern Consulting
Information Technology and Systems Management Consulting
To send me email, replace 'nospam' with 'home'.
------------------------------
From: "Sean Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can't get CD-RW working under RH 7.0
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:22:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dances With
Crows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:13:39 GMT, Sean Murphy staggered into the Black
> Sun and said:
>>I'm trying to get my Plextor W8/4/32A working under my RH 7.0 and am
>>First, I'm using the kernel shipped with RH 7.0. I didn't recompile it
>>or anything and the FAQ's give the impression that I shouldn't have to.
>>My system has a hard drive on ide 0, master. The Plextor CD-RW is on ide
>>1, master. A Creative Labs CD-ROM is on ide1, slave.
>>
>>Using the setup described in both FAQ's I've listed above, here is how
>>my
>>/etc/modules.conf looks:
>>----
> [snip]
>> options ide-cd ignore=hdc pre-install ide-scsi modprobe ide-cd
>
> How about adding "ignore=hdd" there, too? There is no reason to have
> ide-cd loading at all, ever, with your setup. Hmm, "alias ide-cd off"?
I did have ignore=hdd in there too the first time I tried and the same
result occured, only the Creative Labs CD-ROM is showing up as a SCSI
device
>
> [snip]
>>and finally, cdrecord -scanbus reports the following:
>>----
>>cdrecord: Warning: controller returns wrong size for CD capabilities
>>page.
>> 0,0,0 0) 'CREATIVE' 'CD4831E TS030808' '1.00' Removable CD-ROM
>> 0,1,0 1) *
>> 0,2,0 2) *
>> 0,3,0 3) *
>> 0,4,0 4) *
>> 0,5,0 5) *
>> 0,6,0 6) *
>> 0,7,0 7) *
>>----
>>
>>So my system seems to only be seeing my CD-ROM and not the RW drive.
>>Anyone have any ideas? I'm a little confused by what appears to be
>>conflicting methods in the different FAQ's, so I don't even understand
>>if I should be setting both CD drives for ide-scsi, or not.
>
> Yes, both. It can be problematic if you try to use ide-cd on /dev/hdd
> and ide-scsi emulation on /dev/hdc. The general rule is if one IDE
> device on a channel is using ide-scsi emulation, the other one should be
> using it as well. Can the Plextor be seen on /dev/hdc ? If so, ide-cd
> is grabbing the drive. The best thing to do would be to get rid of
> ide-cd completely; you don't need it with your setup.
I've been operating this machine for a few months under Linux with both of these
drives installed and just never had time to try to get the RW part of the
CD-RW working! So up until today, the Plextor drive was being seen as an
ide CD-ROM at /dev/hdc and the Creative Labs was being seen as an ide CD-ROM at
/dev/hdd. Now, with the current parameters, the Plextor drive isn't
being seen at all! /dev/scd0 seems to point at the Creative Labs drive
(at least when I type 'mount /dev/scd0 /mnt/tmp' the Creative drive spins
up). I can't seem to find any command to get the Plextor drive to spin
up. Is there any way I can see where that drive currently is? dmesg
showed it coming up as hdc first and the Creative drive coming up as hdd,
but then later it put the Creative drive as scd0 and the Plextor drive
seems to have vanished from the landscape!
>
> It might be a long shot, but check the jumper settings too. Most
> CD-ROMs ship jumpered as "master", and if both devices are jumpered as
> master, they won't play well together. And if the BIOS is set to allow
> UDMA on the second IDE interface, try to disable that--some CD-ROMs
> mistakenly report that they can handle UDMA when they can't, and no
> CD-ROM goes fast enough to require UDMA. HTH,
I could be wrong, but I don't think that is an issue. The drives used to
both work properly with the current jumper setting before I started
messing with getting the recording functions working. Also, the drives
both show up and function properly under Windows 2000 (the other
partition on this system) so I don't think it is a hardware setup issue.
>
------------------------------
From: "Sean Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can't get CD-RW working under RH 7.0
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:28:40 GMT
>
> I have a similar set up to yours hardware wise. I did recompile my
> kernel for generic scsi support, although I've read it is not absolutely
> required. Secondly, I used this link for setting things up. It was
> written in part by the fellow who gave us cdrecord, so I trust his
> abilities.
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/CD-Writing-HOWTO
>
I did take a look at that one and I don't think I had much luck with it,
but honestly I'm getting confused about what I've tried and haven't tried
so maybe I'll run with that one again!
Any chance I could get more information on your setup? How many drives,
where they are at on your IDE bus, etc. Especially if I could see what
commands you put in /etc/rc.d/rc.local, /etc/modules.conf,
and in your /etc/lilo.conf files would be really helpful.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Garman)
Subject: Re: new scsi drive woes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:37:06 GMT
Well, I appear to have solved my problems. In my SCSI controller bios, I
set the parameter "Max Sync Xfer Rate" to 40 MB/s (from 80 MB/s) for the
new drive.
Max Sync Xfer Rate means Maximum Synchronous Transfer Rate. On my CD-R
and my old Seagate drive, I left Max Sync Xfer rate at 80 MB/s, and the
drives perform fine.
It's ironic though---the new Quantum drive supports 80 MB/s transfer
rates, and the Tekram dc-390u2w should also support that (I have it
attached to the 68 pin Ultra2 channel). Even if it can't handle that
rate, it should be able to auto-negotiate the proper speed (as it does for
my other peripherals). So my newest, fastest drive has to be run at half
it's potential speed.
Anyone know why I must lower the transfer rate? Is there anyway I can
safely crank it back up to 80 MB/s?
Thanks for any help!
Matt
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:51:26 GMT, Matt Garman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just installed a new Quantum Atlas 10k II in my system. I have a Tekram
> DC-390u2w controller card.
>
> Well, I think I am having some serious geometry problems. Someone on the
> comp.periphs.scsi group suggested looking into the "linear" boot option in
> LILO. I toyed with that, after what I thought was a successful
> installation, and I was getting TONS of SCSI errors dumped to the console.
> I wrote down some of these errors, and they were something like this:
>
> sym53c895-0: unexpected disconnect
> sym53c895-0: script cmd (some non-human understandable codes here)
> sym53c895-0: regdump
>
> I'm pretty sure these are serious errors.
>
> So then I booted from my DOS installation disk and ran fdisk on the new
> drive. I created an 8 mb FAT12 partition. Then I rebooted into the
> Debian install program to use Linux's fdisk to make my Linux partitions.
>
> The strange thing is that after running DOS's fdisk, Linux's cfdisk
> reported my drive as having 255 heads, 63 cylinders. It originally had
> different numbers.
>
> Anyway, I made the partitions, then tried to initialize a Linux partition.
> After initializing one of my partitions, I got a lot of ext2-fs errors
> dumped to the scrren. The errors looked something like this:
>
> EXT2-fs error (device sd(8,6)): ext2_check_blocks_bitmap: Block #246 of
> the inode table...
>
> And the rest was overwritten by the installation dialog.
>
> I went ahead with the install just to see what would happen, and sure
> enough, when I booted, I got that warning that says you must manually run
> fsck in order to boot.
>
> So then I gave up and re-connected my old drive and disconnected the new
> one.
>
> This is driving me nuts, and I have no idea what's wrong.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!
> Matt
>
> --
> Matt Garman, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer."
> from _Dune_ by Frank Herbert
--
Matt Garman, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer."
from _Dune_ by Frank Herbert
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:20:08 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: Should I abandon SCSI?
Out of curiosity, how exactly does RAID 1 or higher
handle bus failures?
For example, suppose the SCSI controller chip fails. Is the
entire RAID array corrupted? Or is this handled gracefully
somehow?
Stuffed Crust wrote:
>
> In comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>No, it is significantly less reliable than even a single disk.
> > Nope.
> >>much exactly half as reliable.
> > Twice small is still small.
> > Yep, but for small numbers the likelihood of failure is still small.
>
> *shrug*
>
> Raid-0 and reliability:
>
> Instead of loosing everything on your disk when one dies, you loose
> everything on all disks when one dies. Twice nothing is still nothing.
>
> Which is why if your data is of any importance at all, you won't trust it
> to a RAID0. RAID1 is the minimum, and even then you should make regular
> backups onto something physically seperate.
>
> If RELIABILITY is a criterion, then RAID-0 is flat out.
>
> RAID0+1 would work though... but if you're going to throw that many disks
> at it, you might as well go to RAID-5.
>
> But anyway.
>
> - Pizza
> --
> Solomon Peachy pizzaATfucktheusers.org
> I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent.
> Patience comes to those who wait.
> ...It's not "Beanbag Love", it's a "Transanimate Relationship"...
------------------------------
From: Bernd Huebenett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new scsi drive woes
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:32:42 +0100
Hello Matt,
what do you expect from leaving the settings on 80 MB/s ?? Your CD-Rom
won't transfer more 10 MB/s and no single hardisk is capable of
transfering 80 MB/s in normal operation (not even 40 MB/s). You wrote
that your new hardisk works fine after reducing the max transfer rate. I
don't think that your new drive is the problem, but how about your
cables and the termination ??
Have a nice weekend,
Bernd
------------------------------
From: Markus Kossmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tekram DC-390U3W isn't recognized at boot
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:11:52 +0100
John Margaglione wrote:
>
> Like the title says, I can't get Linux (2.4.1) to recognize that there is
> a 390U3W card when the system is booting. Once Linux is booted I can
> load the sym53c8xx module, no problem. Temporarily I put the insmod
> statement in rc.local. But now I would like to boot my entire system
> from SCSI (no IDE drives), and I am getting frustrated.
>
> But I need to recognize the SCSI
> card at boot time so that I can make swap partitions on it, not to
> mention the fact that I don't like having to insmod the driver myself.
>
> I had an Adaptec 2940UW before, and it recognized the card no problem. I
> posted this to comp.periphs.scsi week ago with no responses.
>
> Any thoughts?
Either read about building a new initrd (= initial ramdisk). You will
probably find a script called mk_initrd (or mkinitrd), which will build
a new initrd for you. Read the documentation for that script about
configuring it for a initrd, which loads the symbios driver module.
Or build a new kernel and compile the symbios driver hard into the
kernel.
--
Markus Kossmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ron Reaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: Should I abandon SCSI?
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 08:52:19 GMT
jtnews wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Out of curiosity, how exactly does RAID 1 or higher
>handle bus failures?
It fails.
>For example, suppose the SCSI controller chip fails. Is the
>entire RAID array corrupted?
Well, the entire RAID array is offline/fails unless there are two SCSI
chips/controllers.
> Or is this handled gracefully
>somehow?
Not without redundant SCSI hardware.
>Stuffed Crust wrote:
>>
>> In comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>No, it is significantly less reliable than even a single disk.
>> > Nope.
>> >>much exactly half as reliable.
>> > Twice small is still small.
>> > Yep, but for small numbers the likelihood of failure is still small.
>>
>> *shrug*
>>
>> Raid-0 and reliability:
>>
>> Instead of loosing everything on your disk when one dies, you loose
>> everything on all disks when one dies. Twice nothing is still nothing.
>>
>> Which is why if your data is of any importance at all, you won't trust it
>> to a RAID0. RAID1 is the minimum, and even then you should make regular
>> backups onto something physically seperate.
>>
>> If RELIABILITY is a criterion, then RAID-0 is flat out.
>>
>> RAID0+1 would work though... but if you're going to throw that many disks
>> at it, you might as well go to RAID-5.
>>
>> But anyway.
>>
>> - Pizza
>> --
>> Solomon Peachy pizzaATfucktheusers.org
>> I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent.
>> Patience comes to those who wait.
>> ...It's not "Beanbag Love", it's a "Transanimate Relationship"...
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.hardware.
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
******************************
