Linux-Hardware Digest #420, Volume #14 Thu, 1 Mar 01 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Promise ultra100 hdd controller driver (Baddel Zcwen)
Re: RAID on Linux: What type of hardware to choose? (Toralf Lund)
Re: CDROM on ide1 not seen ("Rinaldi J. Montessi")
Re: Need LOTS of disks: Promise ATA RAID?? ("Leo")
Problems with NetGear FA311 & Mandrake 7.2 ("Blue")
Difference in disk performance between 2.2 & 2.4 ("Simon Turvey")
Re: Best RAID controller for Linux ("Leo")
Re: What UPSs does RHL7 support out of the box? ("Faldar")
Re: CDROM on ide1 not seen (Stefano Ghirlanda)
Re: SCSI IDE RAID Advices needed (Joshua Baker-LePain)
Re: Difference in disk performance between 2.2 & 2.4 (Kenneth R�rvik)
Re: Best RAID controller for Linux (Joshua Baker-LePain)
Re: RAID on Linux: What type of hardware to choose? (Joshua Baker-LePain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Baddel Zcwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install,alt.os.linux.suse
Subject: Re: Promise ultra100 hdd controller driver
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:47:41 +0100
mike wrote:
> Thanks everyone, both great suggestions. Question I have is would a
> boot disk for 7.0 work for 7.1?
I dunno, sorry. But I would give it a try.
> Mike
Regards,
Baddel
------------------------------
From: Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: RAID on Linux: What type of hardware to choose?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:51:29 +0100
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We want to set up a RAID system consisting of 6 to 8 36 or 73 Gb disks
> > (initially; we may or may not want to add more disks later) for a Linux
> > host , which is Intel (dual-Pentium-III) based and runs Red Hat 7.0.
> > However, we are uncertain about what type of hardware to choose. As I
> > understand, there are 3 different types of configurations, namely:
>
> > 1. An external, self-contained SCSI unit (SCSI-to-SCSI)
> > 2. Internal (PCI) RAID controller and SCSI disks.
> > 3. Internal RAID controller with IDE/ATA disks.
>
> 4. External, self-contained unit with IDE disks which connects to host
> via SCSI (IDE-SCSI RAID).
>
> > I was just wondering about what other peoples experience with the
> > different setups are, and what you would recommend. - At the moment, I'm
> > inclined to go for alternative 1. as it seems to be the most reliable
>
> That's been the "standard" for a while now, at least in the high end sector.
>
> > one, and also the one where the installation involves the least amount
> > of hassle. I'm assuming that there will be a certain amount of messing
> > around with drivers with 2. and 3., but maybe this isn't really a
>
> The 3ware cards (option 3) seem to be very well supported. The driver
> is already in your distro. It *should* be as easy as a modprobe.
>
> > problem? Also, 1. is probably the most expensive solution, which isn't a
> > major concern as such, but an added cost obviously has to be justified.
>
> You haven't given us the most important bit of information -- what is
> this going to be used for? Are you going to have tons of users pounding
> on this thing day and night? How much of a problem is downtime?
>
> > Finally - and this may be a silly question, but I really have no
> > experience with ATA disks - would selecting the IDE/ATA setup mean that
> > all disks need to fit into the main cabinet? (I seem to remember that
> > there was such a limitation with IDE back in the old days.)
>
> 3ware sells 4 and 8 channel cards for IDE RAID, one drive per channel.
> That gets over IDE's limitation.
I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't I still need a separate cable from the
controller to each disk? Seems to me that this makes an external connection
impractical.
> There's been a number of threads on this recently. The gist is, you need
> to determine what your needs are and what you are willing to pay to fulfill
> them. Myself, I need a fair bit of space (.5TB), but I don't need humongous
> speed/multitasking abilities.
Hmmm. We definitely want the disk to be accessed by several users/applications
simultaneously (and I know that direct IDE is rather useless when you do, but
does the RAID controller overcome this limitation?), but I have no idea
whatsoever what sort of data rates/access times I need. I guess we could do
some calculations on this, though...
> So I'm looking very hard at option 4. In
> fact, I just got a quote for a pretty nice system -- Syneraid 800T (UDMA/66
> disks, U2W LVD host connection, 8 hot swap drive bays, dual power supplies)
> with 8 80GB 5400RPM Maxtor disks for ~$5900US. The vendor claimed that
> the 5400RPM disks only minimally affect throughput vs. 7200RPM models, and
> that they have "timing issues" with the 75 and 80GB 7200RPM disks.
>
> If performance is critical, there's just no beating SCSI. If you've
> got the bucks and the need, go with option 1. I got quotes on some
> *very* nice systems from Zzyzx (www.zzyzx.com). Check out their
> RocketStor and RocketRaid lines. I highly recommend them as a vendor.
------------------------------
From: "Rinaldi J. Montessi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CDROM on ide1 not seen
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:02:28 -0500
Stefano Ghirlanda wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am trying to install an ATAPI cdrom. I have connected it to the slot
> labelled IDE2 and jumpered it as SINGLE as it is hte only device
> attached to IDE2. IDE2 is what's written on my motherboard but it
> should be ide1 in Linux, as IDE1 is ide0...
>
> I am sure the connection cable works, the device is powered and the
> hard drive on ide0 is working.
>
> Now from this excerpt from dmesg it seems that the CDROM is not
> detected:
>
> PCI_IDE: unknown IDE controller on PCI bus 00 device f9, VID=8086, DID=2411
> PCI_IDE: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later
> ide0: BM-DMA at 0xffa0-0xffa7, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:pio
> ide1: BM-DMA at 0xffa8-0xffaf, BIOS settings: hdc:pio, hdd:pio
> hda: QUANTUM FIREBALLlct10 10, ATA DISK drive
> ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14
> hda: QUANTUM FIREBALLlct10 10, 9787MB w/418kB Cache, CHS=1247/255/63, UDMA
>
> And no mention of hdc on ide1...
> Thanks a lot for any hint you will prived!
>
> --
> Stefano - Hodie Kalendis Martiis MMI est
Assuming your cd is installed correctly, do you have support built in to
your kernel?
--
Rinaldi]$
When we remember we are all mad the mysteries disappear and
life stands explained. - Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: "Leo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Need LOTS of disks: Promise ATA RAID??
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:05:05 GMT
> > SCSI controllers, and SCSI RAID controllers definitely enable connection
of
> > larger numbers of disks and offload I/O specific tasks from the CPU to
the
> > controller. Yes, there are some companies out there making some low
cost
> > IDE array type devices. Perhaps there are fits for this, but call me
> > skeptical about trusting my business critical servers to an IDE RAID (or
IDE
> > RAID converted back to SCSI! seems like there would have to be some
> > performance hit with that translation?). BTW - Are any of these IDE
RAID
> > solutions endorsed by the Raid Advisory Board? I haven't looked.
>
> No more than doing SCSI-SCSI that a hardware SCSI RAID device would do.
> Note that there is little difference between IDE and SCSI drives.
My point is SCSI systems today offer greater performance and scalability
than IDE systems. Also, SCSI is more widely used in business critical
environments today that demand these levels of performance, scalability and
availability. Are you saying you disagree? Are these IDE systems RAB
certified? I consult for Fortune 1000 companies and have yet to see an IDE
array in production anywhere.
IDE = Desktop, low end server
SCSI = Server, High end JBOD and intelligent disk array systems
> > Fibre channel DOES NOT always outperform SCSI.
> > Remember, SCSI uses many parallel paths where fibre is a serial type
> > delivery that passes SCSI protocols. So, although it's 'faster', due to
the
> > encapsulation and de-capsulation if you will, of the SCSI protocol to
pass
> > it over fibre channel depending on your I/O block size it may not be
faster.
> > Typically small block I/O is faster with SCSI. Typically when you get
into
> > block sizes of 16 or 32K, fibre will win. Point is, it's more expensive
and
> > not always faster-- but can be. Also, fibre rules for distance and
> > connectivity... you can fan out through a switch fabric and connect all
> > kinds of servers.
>
> The latest fiber channel is somewhat faster than SCSI. It all keeps
changing
> I know.
The *latest* FC? It's still 100MB/s in either loop or switched as far as I
know. Yes/NO? Is there a new FC standard I'm not aware of? Fibre Channel
is not a protocol-- it's a channel/network standard. It can pass SCSI,
network, video, etc... SCSI is packaged->sent->and unwrapped on FC adding
overhead. That's why SCSI, which uses HIPPI (high speed PARALLEL interface)
can be faster than FC under smaller block I/O circumstances. Disagree?
> > I don't think IDE is for anything high end that needs the requirements
> > stated above. I don't see EMC running out to put IDE drives in their
> > enterprise storage systems, or Hitachi, or IBM, or Compaq, (MTI, Sun,
> > NetApp, blah blah blah....) it's just not the right tool...
>
> Depends I would not describe 300GB as high end these days.
Neither would I. As I defined above, I believe high end means more than
capacity. High end means requiring other attributes that SCSI systems
deliver today that IDE systems cannot deliver in comparison.
>
> >
> > EVERYTHING HAS IT'S PLACE. Understand your requirements and deploy the
> > right technology. Use the right tool. Using IDE for mission critical
> > storage requirments is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Using
> > Ultra160MB/s with spanky-fast 10K drives with all kinds of redundacy for
> > something non-critical reminds be of that credit card commercial where
they
> > are trying to get the cat out of the tree "It's a Calico, we need more
air
> > support!". What about a ladder? yeah, IDE's your fit.
>
> What's wrong with the 15k drives then.
Again, the point is use the right tool for your requirments. What's wrong
with 15k drives? Nothing. What's your point? Re-reading what I wrote, you
don't agree? That each technology has a fit depending on the deployment?
Or are you implying everything doesn't have it's nitche, and IDE is a fit
for everything?
------------------------------
From: "Blue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problems with NetGear FA311 & Mandrake 7.2
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:11:19 GMT
I just installed Mandrake 7.2 on a secondary box, but for the life of me I
cant get my NetGear FA311 Network Adapter to work. I have tried four
different sets of drivers of various website recommendations, the first
three wouldnt even compile correctly. Now I *THINK* this last driver
compiled correctly, I moved it to my /lib/modules/2.2.17-21mdk/net/ folder,
but when I ran 'insmod fa311.o' last night It says "File not owned by root"
This morning 'insmod fa311.o' has given me a> no output & b> "No such file
or directory"
This morning 'modprobe fa311.o' gives me "Cant locate module"
I am a newbie to Linux, and WILL NOT give up on it because WINDOWS IS
USELESS CROTCH FUNGUS!!!
Any help with this would be GREATLY appreciated!!
Remove 'NOSPAM!' to respond.
Michael Repper
http://www.RepperTackle.com
------------------------------
From: "Simon Turvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Difference in disk performance between 2.2 & 2.4
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:13:06 -0000
Hi,
I've been running some speed tests between kernels using identical
parameters to hdparm and have found 2.4.0 to be significantly slower
than 2.2.18. Can anyone confirm this.
For me the difference is from about 22MB/S to about 14MB/S
Regards,
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Leo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.raid
Subject: Re: Best RAID controller for Linux
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:20:08 GMT
Actually I have tried the 2100S, and compared to the GDT6513RS it's a dog.
There are many ways to skin a cat-- to me, for our business critical servers
that need the *highest* (not just acceptable) levels of performance and
availability ICP is worth the few extra bucks.
Yeah, a Ford Escort and a Mercedes both have 4 wheels and a steering wheel.
Both with get you from point A to B. Are they the same class of product?
Hell no.
"Hubba Bubba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wow.... Tier 1 support for good old 6.1. Congratulations. :)
> Apparently, you've never used a 2100S or 3000S series Adaptec
> controller. Can you say drivers?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:41:14 GMT, "Leo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >That's great feedback...
> >
> >I can only say as a consultant who has tried a lot of controllers in
> >multiple OS's (Linux, and Novell/NT) ICP has been the best. I'm
certainly
> >not slamming others, I've successfully deployed many other array
controllers
> >including Adaptec, Compaq SMART Array Controllers, HP NetRAID, etc. But,
> >ICP has been the best overall. Best performing, best support, and best
ease
> >of setup our consulting team has experienced.
> >
> >Since we started www.icp-order.com, I've asked customers where they heard
of
> >ICP and why they made an ICP decision. One of the latest responses I
> >received was "We saw ICP at Linuxworld and were impressed. After having
> >numerous issues with Adaptec (and he mentioned driver related issues) we
> >decided to try ICP.
> >
> >Actually, ICP is the ONLY Tier 1 RAID controller approved by Redhat.
Check
> >out http://www.redhat.com/support/hardware/intel/61/rh6.1-hcl-i.ld-5.html
> >and scroll to section 5.6.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Leo J. Squire
> >www.icp-order.com
> >High Availability, Now Highly Available
> >
> >
> >"Vincent Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:97e0ko$s6b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In <97bsr5$40k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Juergen Sauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >writes:
> >>
> >> *snip*
> >>
> >> I've started using the 3Ware IDE RAID controller and been
> >> very impressed with it so far. Using a pair of IBM 75GXP drives
> >> in mirroring mode, disk reads are very fast. The mirroring
> >> works as advertised. I can "fail" a drive by unplugging it
> >> and it keeps running. Rebuilding onto the failed drive
> >> to return to full mirroring functionality can be done while
> >> the system is running. Sweet.
> >>
> >> Only weird thing I note is that if I put my Tekram D390U3W card
> >> in with a Seagate X15 drive it seems I cannot access it. I think
> >> the 3Ware and the Tekram card conflict.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft"?
> >> -- Christine Comaford, PC Week, 27/9/95
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "Faldar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What UPSs does RHL7 support out of the box?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:29:55 GMT
"The Computer Paper" Toronto, ON, Canada edition, a free computer magazine,
by chance has a review of UPS in the current edition. They may have it
online at their web site canadacomputes.com.
Their editor's choice states that that model is openly Linux compatible.
Here is the data on that UPS
Tripp-Lite SmartPro USB 500 500VA rating, 300W
It uses PowerSmart, a free download.
The web site is www.tripplite.com and apparently has a price of $244
Canadian
Other models stated as Linux ready is the Smart450RT and "Internet Office
500" both from the same company.
Also, "PW5115 500" from Powerware www.powerware.com estimated $455 CAN
after US dollar conversion.
"Pulsar Ellipse 300" from MGE www.mgeups.com
and the "Pulsar Ellipse 500" from the same company.
All others listed in the article are not stated as supporting Linux.
Hope that helps you a bit.
Mike C
===== Original Message =====
From: Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:52 PM
Subject: What UPSs does RHL7 support out of the box?
> I've looked at the UPS howto, but it's well over three years old.
> Surely the state of the art has advanced since then!
>
> So, what UPSs does RHL7 support out of the box? /etc/inittab has a
> blurb about powerd, but I am unable to find an executable called
> "powerd" on either disc 1 or disc 2.
>
> What's the story?
>
> --
> Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
> Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (760) 499-9142
> President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
> My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've looked at the UPS howto, but it's well over three years old.
> Surely the state of the art has advanced since then!
>
> So, what UPSs does RHL7 support out of the box? /etc/inittab has a
> blurb about powerd, but I am unable to find an executable called
> "powerd" on either disc 1 or disc 2.
>
> What's the story?
>
> --
> Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
> Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (760) 499-9142
> President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
> My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
------------------------------
From: Stefano Ghirlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CDROM on ide1 not seen
Date: 01 Mar 2001 15:45:40 +0100
"Rinaldi J. Montessi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming your cd is installed correctly, do you have support built
> in to your kernel?
I have ATAPI CDROM support, yes. What should I do to dignose that the
cd is installed correctly?
--
Stefano - Hodie Kalendis Martiis MMI est
------------------------------
From: Joshua Baker-LePain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SCSI IDE RAID Advices needed
Date: 1 Mar 2001 14:01:25 GMT
sancelot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to buy an IDE - SCSI raid array from zero-d
> www.zero-d.com
> I would like to have some people experience with this product under linux
There was a thread that was quite complimentary to their products on
the beowulf mailing list in February of this year. You can check out the
archives at www.beowulf.org.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Difference in disk performance between 2.2 & 2.4
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth R�rvik)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:02:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Turvey) wrote in <ZVrn6.283$4O5.12232@news2-
win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>Hi,
> I've been running some speed tests between kernels using identical
>parameters to hdparm and have found 2.4.0 to be significantly slower
>than 2.2.18. Can anyone confirm this.
>
>For me the difference is from about 22MB/S to about 14MB/S
it would help a lot if you can say what hardware you are using, the kernel
configuration (Are you sure all performance-critrical options are
enabled?).
dmesg would be helpful, as would hdparm -i for the disks in question.
--
Kenneth R�rvik 91841353/22950312
Nordbergv. 60 A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
0875 OSLO home.no.net/stasis
------------------------------
From: Joshua Baker-LePain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.raid
Subject: Re: Best RAID controller for Linux
Date: 1 Mar 2001 14:03:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anyone know of a hardware IDE raid solution that *works*?
Look at the products from Zero-D and Syneraid -- external IDE RAID
enclosures that talk SCSI to the host.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
------------------------------
From: Joshua Baker-LePain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: RAID on Linux: What type of hardware to choose?
Date: 1 Mar 2001 14:07:04 GMT
Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Finally - and this may be a silly question, but I really have no
>> > experience with ATA disks - would selecting the IDE/ATA setup mean that
>> > all disks need to fit into the main cabinet? (I seem to remember that
>> > there was such a limitation with IDE back in the old days.)
>>
>> 3ware sells 4 and 8 channel cards for IDE RAID, one drive per channel.
>> That gets over IDE's limitation.
> I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't I still need a separate cable from the
> controller to each disk? Seems to me that this makes an external connection
> impractical.
Oops -- I misunderstood you. Yes, with the 3ware card, all disks have to
fit inside the host system. I thought you meant the "2 drives per channel"
IDE limitatation. For an external solution, you're probably looking at
IDE-SCSI (zero-d or syneraid).
> Hmmm. We definitely want the disk to be accessed by several users/applications
> simultaneously (and I know that direct IDE is rather useless when you do, but
> does the RAID controller overcome this limitation?), but I have no idea
> whatsoever what sort of data rates/access times I need. I guess we could do
> some calculations on this, though...
With an investment like this, you really need to figure out exactly what
you need. Planning, planning, planning...
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
