Linux-Hardware Digest #491, Volume #14 Fri, 16 Mar 01 23:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Funky Disk ("Loz")
Re: Should I abandon SCSI? ("Ron Reaugh")
Re: Two OS, two hard drives, one computer ("Randy")
Re: Motorola Cellphones serial protocol??? ("Alex Collins")
Re: Should I abandon SCSI? (Chris Pitzel)
Re: Should I abandon SCSI? ("Ron Reaugh")
Re: Linux Support for ATAPI CD-R/W Drives (Mark Bratcher)
Re: 10 gig disk in a 500 meg BIOS (Juergen Pfann)
Re: IDE RAID cards? ("Loz")
Re: Tape Drive OnStream ECHO30 Internal IDE. Good Choice? (Joe Parente)
Re: serial/parallel port card ("Rodney D. Myers")
Re: Linux Support for ATAPI CD-R/W Drives ("J. E. Garrott Sr")
Conexant Chipset Modem ("David Findlay")
CD-RW and DVD swappable on laptop (Jason Novotny)
Re: IDE RAID cards? (Vincent Fox)
Re: serial/parallel port card (Mark Bratcher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Loz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Funky Disk
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:15:20 -0800
Thanks for your reply (about my bad partition table)
I couldn't find a free tool that would alter the partition table without
trying to jump to the (what i now know) extended partition off the end of
the disk and barf. So I bought partition magic - and it also barfed.
Eventually I found the ptedit.exe (i think) tool on the partition magic
resuce disk which will only follow bad partition links if you ask it to. I
got the calculator out and figured out the correct CHS values and stuck them
in and zapped the non-existant extended partition. (If i'd have been very
brave I guess I could have used dd to do this instead). When I rebooted into
Linux now the partitioning problems had gone away - the last remaining
problem was to fix the filesystem which was still 63Gb, partition magic
sorted this too (even though it spotted that the filesystem size and
partition size didn't add up and offered to set the partition size back to
63Gb!).
I'd not head of GNU parted or FIPS, I'm not sure whether they would have
done the job or not (Partition Magic did its best not to - with both its
usual GUI tools barfing with the original setup)
cheers
Loz
>
> I think the safest way would be to copy all the files from /dev/hda to
> another place, then use FDISK.EXE or cfdisk to repartition the drive and
> get it right this time, then make a FAT32 filesystem on the new
> partition, and copy everything back. You can use a DOS bootdisk with
> SYS.COM on it to restore the DOS bootrecord so LoseME will not barf upon
> boot.
>
> Another option is to resize the partition with a tool such as GNU
> parted or FIPS.EXE. This might be tough as these programs will
> naturally try to read beyond the 43G that actually exist on disk.
> However, this would be much quicker! PartitionMagic is another option,
> if you feel comfortable with payware. 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: "Ron Reaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: Should I abandon SCSI?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:17:05 GMT
Ed Blackman wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:09:27 GMT, Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>NewsReader2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message ...
>>>"Ron Reaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:7g5n6.6016$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Nope, just keep good backups like is required with a single HD.
>>>
>>>Not good enough at 3:00pm the next day!
>>>
>>>Just keep to a single drive for greater reliability and stability.
>>>
>>>Choose 10K+ SCSI to improve workstation performance
>>
>>All nonsense. Nothing supplants a good backup scheme at 3:00 or at
>>any other time. Fast inexpensive EIDE RAID 0 plus an appropriate
>>backup/checkpoint scheme is just as reliable as a SCSI solution.
>
>Because a single drive failure in RAID 0 array takes down the entire
>array, the probability of failure of a RAID 0 array is the *sum* of the
>probability of failures of all of the drives in the array. So a single
>drive *is* more reliable than a RAID 0 array.
That's not the issue.
> Assuming drives with
>similar failure rates, a RAID 0 array is X times more prone to failure
>than a single drive, where X is the number of drives in the array.
Twice small is still small. Acceptable reliability is still acceptable. No
one denies that the probablity of failure goes up in RAID 0. The question
of this thread is whether that is a significant issue in single user
workstation usage compared to the large performance gains.
------------------------------
From: "Randy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.setup.hardware
Subject: Re: Two OS, two hard drives, one computer
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:24:07 +0500
> I hope these are the right newsgroups to post such a question. I was
> wondering if it's possible to have two hard drives with two different
> OS, Windows95 and Linux, on the same computer. If it is possible, how?
> Thanks for any help. Frank C.
>
Yes, it is possible. And not extremely difficult, either.
1) Install Windows first. If you don't, Windows will screw up your boot
partition and you won't be able to boot into Linux.
2) If you want to have one OS on each hard drive, make sure all of your
Windows data is on one hard drive and you are good to go for installing
Linux on the other.
3) When you install Linux, it will detect your two drives as hda and hdb
(hda is your primary drive). Ignore the one with Windows on it and set
up the partitions for Linux on the other.
4) You will want at /boot partition with about 15MB, a swap partition
with about 128MB (or more if you wish) then you will need a / partition
which is your main partition. It is also helpful to set up a separate
/home partition where all of YOUR files will reside. This way if you
have to reinstall Linux, you still have all of your files. Give yourself
a big /home partition if you can - you won't want to run out of room
there.
Hope this helps. I'm sure there are others out there that have more
info as well.
God bless,
Randy
------------------------------
From: "Alex Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Cellphones serial protocol???
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:18:30 -0000
if you have a spare pc why not write a small prog to echo serial input from
the windows box to an output serial port, and vise-versa and then log the
data... you could then either try and work it out, or post snippets to try
and figure it out.
"bgeer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98tgne$6hu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I use a Motorola TimePort cellphone which has memory for 99 names & 4
> phone numbers for each. I purchased their serial port hardware &
> software package [designed for Win95/98] for downloading that info.
>
> It works ok but I hate to boot Win98 just to download my phone.
> Especially since the phone numbers I want to download are in my
> Handspring Prism which I manage with Linux & Coldsync.
>
> With 30 years of software experience with all kinds of hardware,
> operating systems, & programming languages exotic & plain, programming
> a download utility should be, oh, maybe a *full* weekend's spare time
> hacking for me if I make it fancy...:-)
>
> So, I nicely & reasonably described my credentials, explained my
> reasoning, & requested documentation on the TimePort's serial
> communications protocol from Motorola customer support & quickly
> received:
>
> "The information you are requesting is considered proprietary and
> will not be sent out the individual consumers. We reserve the right
> to save these for our technicians that are affiliated with Motorola."
>
> Ok, so what's their problem? [Rhetorical question!]
>
> My real request is for pointers to any useful information so I can
> program a download utility. Anyone know where I might find some
> useful info?
>
> Naturally, anything useful I come up with will be GPL'd or less...:-)
>
> Much obliged, Bob
>
>
> --
> <> Robert Geer & Donna Tomky | |||| ||||
<>
> <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | == == Suddenly, == ==
<>
> <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | == == We feel enchanted! == ==
<>
> <> Albuquerque, NM USA | |||| ||||
<>
------------------------------
From: Chris Pitzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: Should I abandon SCSI?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:28:42 GMT
> > Assuming drives with
> >similar failure rates, a RAID 0 array is X times more prone to failure
> >than a single drive, where X is the number of drives in the array.
>
> Twice small is still small. Acceptable reliability is still acceptable. No
Twice 10% is 20%. "Acceptable reliability is still acceptable" --
what's that supposed to mean.
> one denies that the probablity of failure goes up in RAID 0. The question
> of this thread is whether that is a significant issue in single user
> workstation usage compared to the large performance gains.
The performance gains are not large. Yet the probability of failure
increase is huge. This just doesn't make sense, computer geek's
basement machine aside.
------------------------------
From: "Ron Reaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: Should I abandon SCSI?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:48:59 GMT
Chris Pitzel wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > Assuming drives with
>> >similar failure rates, a RAID 0 array is X times more prone to failure
>> >than a single drive, where X is the number of drives in the array.
>>
>> Twice small is still small. Acceptable reliability is still acceptable.
No
>
>Twice 10% is 20%. "Acceptable reliability is still acceptable" --
>what's that supposed to mean.
>
>> one denies that the probablity of failure goes up in RAID 0. The
question
>> of this thread is whether that is a significant issue in single user
>> workstation usage compared to the large performance gains.
>
>The performance gains are not large. Yet the probability of failure
>increase is huge.
Simply wacko.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Subject: Re: Linux Support for ATAPI CD-R/W Drives
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:04:41 GMT
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:40:02 GMT, p e a r c e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up
his/her discourse and spake:
>How good is it? Should I just stick with SCSI?
>
I have an HP CD-RW drive, ATAPI. Works fine, no problems.
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply direct, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
===============================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: Juergen Pfann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: 10 gig disk in a 500 meg BIOS
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:57:55 +0100
David Efflandt wrote:
>
> A primary boot partition of around 16 MB entirely below 1024 cyl should
> do. This gives you room for compiling and installing alternate
> kernels. Once the kernel loads it has its own software BIOS that can
> handle larger drives.
>
I'd like to add some considerations espec. on a separate /boot partition
:
Most CHS-LBA translation schemes I've seen recently use a mapping of
255 heads and 63 sectors, thus 1 cylinder in this mapping is
16065 sectors or nearly 8 MB. Normally, Linux fdisk prints these
numbers at the beginning.
Linux fdisk sets partition sizes to multiples of cylinders, as this
is the recommended, safe partitioning scheme across operating systems.
Thus, I recommend to stick to this and divide your HD(s) in (c)fdisk
in cylinder units anyway.
I still regard 1 cylinder / 8 MB for the /boot partition to be plenty
enough for most of us - as you usually don't compile your kernels *in*
there (remember this would require >100 MB for 2.4.x), you just _store_
your kernel, the System.map, LILO' secondary loaders (boot.b, chain.b
etc.) and - probably most important - LILO's "map" file there.
Even with a "bloated" 2.4 kernel and its System.map, you're unlikely
to exceed 2 MB - thus, 16 MB is overkill IMHO.
OTOH, with nowadays' HD sizes, it doesn't matter too much, though.
Juergen
------------------------------
From: "Loz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IDE RAID cards?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:10:03 -0800
Don't go for a Promise FastTrak - driver support is lousy - You may get it
going on 2.2.x with raid 0 or raid 1 but thats your lot.
cheers
Loz
"Rithban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I've been exploring using a IDE RAID card for four drives. Any
> suggestions?
>
> --
> Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very
> sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...
------------------------------
From: Joe Parente <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tape Drive OnStream ECHO30 Internal IDE. Good Choice?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:11:13 GMT
Will Sergent wrote:
>
> I have to make a tape drive recommendation for someone and found this
> drive:
> http://www.onstream.com/desktop/di30_d.html Anyone have experience with
> this drive?
> I checked the kernel docs and their are drivers for it.
> Would this drive make a good choice for once a day backups of only a few
> gigs or so?
> Thanks
>
> --
> Will Sergent
> Cronosys LLC
> 216.221.4600 X305
I'm using this drive and it works well. The only things I'd mention
is that the 'supported' driver mentioned on their web site (ide-tape)
sucks. Find the osst driver. It works great. I've backed up my 45 gig
RH 7.0 server 4 times so far and selectively restored 5 times.
I've been using a trial version of bru 16.0. Also if you use bru,
I would recommend the CLI, *not* the gui interface.
I originally compiled osst as a module, and when I found it works
well, I compiled it directly into the kernel. This was to avoid
the errors from forgetting to load the mod before backing up. :)
Oh, and the devices you use are /dev/osst and /dev/nosst
Joe Parente
------------------------------
From: "Rodney D. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: serial/parallel port card
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:32:35 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark
Bratcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:03:30 -0800, Rodney D. Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up his/her discourse and spake:
>>Is there any particular serial/parallel port card that works with
>>Linux?
>>
>>I need to try and get my printer working, and the onboard port isn't
>>doing it's job.
>>
>>Thanks
>>--
>>Rodney D. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Member of Digital Freedom Alliance
>>Amateur: KG6ANX GMRS: WPOM592 ICQ# : 18002350
>>Have A NORML Day
>
> Rodney,
>
> Any number of the SIIG PCI parallel port cards have worked for me.
> Linux recognizes them right off and they work.
>
> Why do you suspect your onboard port is faulty?
>
Mark,
I've been through ecery possible bios configuration for the parallel
port, and when I do "dmesg" I get lp0 on fire.. The same cable printer
works on a windos 95 machine sitting next to this machine.
--
Rodney D. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Member of Digital Freedom Alliance
Amateur: KG6ANX GMRS: WPOM592
ICQ# : 18002350 Have A NORML Day
------------------------------
From: "J. E. Garrott Sr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Support for ATAPI CD-R/W Drives
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:07:39 -0800
p e a r c e wrote:
>
> How good is it? Should I just stick with SCSI?
>
> Thanks
Works good. Read the Cdrom HOWTO.
Good luck,
John
------------------------------
Reply-To: "David Findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "David Findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Conexant Chipset Modem
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:44:30 +1000
I have a Conexant Chipset modem that I am trying to get going under Linux. I
have followed the instructions from one guy who has managed to get his going
with olitec binary drivers. He says that if it segfaults it won't work, but
does not elaborate on what to do if you do get a seg fault. Has anyone tried
this before and got it to work? Could someone please point me to a HOWTO on
this. I tried the olitec drivers with both the 2.2.17 and 2.2.18 kernels.
Both segfault. Does anyone have a reverse engineered open source driver for
this modem? or a better binary driver?
Please don't tell me to go and buy a real modem, if I could afford that I
would :-) Thanks
David Findlay
------------------------------
From: Jason Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.laptop
Subject: CD-RW and DVD swappable on laptop
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 03:51:04 GMT
I have a Sony PCG-XG700K with a swappable CD burner and DVD player
that I'm trying to configure. It looks like for the burner I need to
alias /dev/hdc to /dev/scd0. However, what do I do when I stick the DVD
player in later and it sees it as an ATAPI device? Has anyone else had
any luck easily configuring both players to work?
Thanks, Jason
--
Jason Novotny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home: (510) 704-9917 Work: (510) 486-8662
NERSC Distributed Computing http://www-didc.lbl.gov
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vincent Fox)
Subject: Re: IDE RAID cards?
Date: 17 Mar 2001 03:52:46 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rithban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've been exploring using a IDE RAID card for four drives. Any
>suggestions?
3Ware cards. You can boot from the RAID.
www.3ware.com.
EXCELLENT linux support.
Good place to buy: www.thelinuxstore.com
--
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft"?
-- Christine Comaford, PC Week, 27/9/95
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Subject: Re: serial/parallel port card
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:04:57 GMT
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:32:35 -0800, Rodney D. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up his/her
discourse and spake:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark
>Bratcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:03:30 -0800, Rodney D. Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up his/her discourse and spake:
>>>Is there any particular serial/parallel port card that works with
>>>Linux?
>>>
>>>I need to try and get my printer working, and the onboard port isn't
>>>doing it's job.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>--
>>>Rodney D. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Member of Digital Freedom Alliance
>>>Amateur: KG6ANX GMRS: WPOM592 ICQ# : 18002350
>>>Have A NORML Day
>>
>> Rodney,
>>
>> Any number of the SIIG PCI parallel port cards have worked for me.
>> Linux recognizes them right off and they work.
>>
>> Why do you suspect your onboard port is faulty?
>>
>
>Mark,
>
>I've been through ecery possible bios configuration for the parallel
>port, and when I do "dmesg" I get lp0 on fire.. The same cable printer
>works on a windos 95 machine sitting next to this machine.
Rodney,
Hmm. Did you already post details on this newsgroup about the problem?
If so, I won't probe any further on it (ie, I wasn't paying attention
to the newsgroup at the time of your posts). If not, I'd be interested in:
what kind of printer is it? what are the specific messages in dmesg
regarding lp0?
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply direct, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
===============================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
