Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

2008-07-08 Thread Johnny Hughes

Michael Rock wrote:

To be specific it listed it as "RedHat 5.0 Client".
http://www.linuxtested.com/results/asus_p5k-vm.html



They did not test sata though

Hard Drive   Seagate ST320410A 20G (IDE)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

2008-07-07 Thread Michael Rock
To be specific it listed it as "RedHat 5.0 Client".
http://www.linuxtested.com/results/asus_p5k-vm.html

Looks like no one tested Fedora. I probably should email them since I can 
confirm it works with FC8, but no audio. 

--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?
> To: centos@centos.org
> Date: Monday, July 7, 2008, 10:31 AM
> Michael Rock wrote on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:35:38 -0700 (PDT):
> 
> > it showed
> > this model tested ok with Redhat
> 
> "Redhat" is not a distribution, what exactly got
> it tested with?
> 
> Kai
> 
> -- 
> Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
> Get your web at Conactive Internet Services:
> http://www.conactive.com
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

2008-07-07 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Michael Rock wrote on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:35:38 -0700 (PDT):

> it showed
> this model tested ok with Redhat

"Redhat" is not a distribution, what exactly got it tested with?

Kai

-- 
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

2008-07-07 Thread Michael Rock

--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?
> To: "CentOS mailing list" 
> Date: Monday, July 7, 2008, 7:01 AM
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Michael Rock wrote:
> 
> > Last year to get motherboards with the G33 chipset
> with SATA working 
> > with Centos I had to either use David Harbic fixes or
> use Fedora 8 since 
> > it had the later 2.6.25 kernel.
> >
> > I no longer see David's fixes available and also
> see in the 5.2 release 
> > notes "update SATA driver and
> infrastructure".  Did Redhat finally 
> > incorporate fixes to full support the new G33 chipset
> and SATA?
> >
> > I have more of these G33 chipset motherboards with
> Q6600 cpu.  Trying 
> > to decide which is the least hassle setup and long
> term i386 or x86_64, 
> > on either Centos 5.2 or Fedora 9?
> 
> First of all, if this is important to you, please remember
> to buy hardware 
> based on your OS requirements (and not buy what looks
> interesting to find 
> out you end up having issues driving it). Especially if you
> buy more than 
> one piece...
> 

Actually I did. I checked linuxtested.com before purchase and it showed this 
model tested ok with Redhat except for audio which I could care less about. 
Also, given that the chipset has been out over a year now, it works with 
Fedora, and you have people like David providing fixes you would figure by now 
RHEL 5.2 would have caught up.

> Secondly, Fedora 9 is neither a least hassle setup, not a
> long term 
> solution. Since you may have to upgrade every 6 to 12
> months, which is 
> something you may think does not matter that much, until
> you are forced to 
> upgrade on a timetable that is not yours.
> 

Most of my boxes run Centos and I prefer Centos for that very reason over the 
hassle of constant upgrades.  I also went with Fedora 8 which was a smooth 
install but plan to move it back to Centos/RHEL when they catch up with the 
kernel updates.  The kernel numbering can be a bit confusing to me since they 
backport fixes.  At kernel.org the Sata problems were not fixed until a later 
release and not in 2.6.18

> Thirdly, the best way to find out if your hardware is
> supported is to do 
> an actual installation on that hardware. Since you have
> more than one 
> piece, why not boot it and see if it is fixed ? And then
> report back :-)
> 

I agree but been there before and wanted to see if anyone else knew about the 
backported fixes in case it looks like it is working but in reality there were 
unforseen problems that were not backported.  Is there another place that 
details RH kernel fixes other than Errata since I could not find the fixes 
detailed at kernel.org?

thanks



  
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

2008-07-07 Thread Dag Wieers

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Michael Rock wrote:

Last year to get motherboards with the G33 chipset with SATA working 
with Centos I had to either use David Harbic fixes or use Fedora 8 since 
it had the later 2.6.25 kernel.


I no longer see David's fixes available and also see in the 5.2 release 
notes "update SATA driver and infrastructure".  Did Redhat finally 
incorporate fixes to full support the new G33 chipset and SATA?


I have more of these G33 chipset motherboards with Q6600 cpu.  Trying 
to decide which is the least hassle setup and long term i386 or x86_64, 
on either Centos 5.2 or Fedora 9?


First of all, if this is important to you, please remember to buy hardware 
based on your OS requirements (and not buy what looks interesting to find 
out you end up having issues driving it). Especially if you buy more than 
one piece...


Secondly, Fedora 9 is neither a least hassle setup, not a long term 
solution. Since you may have to upgrade every 6 to 12 months, which is 
something you may think does not matter that much, until you are forced to 
upgrade on a timetable that is not yours.


Thirdly, the best way to find out if your hardware is supported is to do 
an actual installation on that hardware. Since you have more than one 
piece, why not boot it and see if it is fixed ? And then report back :-)


Kind regards,
--
--   dag wieers,  [EMAIL PROTECTED],  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


[CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

2008-07-06 Thread Michael Rock
Last year to get motherboards with the G33 chipset with SATA working with 
Centos I had to either use David Harbic fixes or use Fedora 8 since it had the 
later 2.6.25 kernel.

I no longer see David's fixes available and also see in the 5.2 release notes 
"update SATA driver and infrastructure".  Did Redhat finally incorporate fixes 
to full support the new G33 chipset and SATA?

I have more of these G33 chipset motherboards with Q6600 cpu.  Trying to decide 
which is the least hassle setup and long term i386 or x86_64, on either Centos 
5.2 or Fedora 9?  









  
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos