On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
What I mean is temporarily pull the Quantum disk, load a scratch system
on the Seagate, run some disk testing utility or some such that beats on
the disk, and see if you get errors.
I can no longer look into that, as a more
On Mar 23, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
What I mean is temporarily pull the Quantum disk, load a scratch
system
on the Seagate, run some disk testing utility or some such that beats
on the disk, and see if you get errors.
I can no longer look into that, as a
David Kelly writes:
Whether or not Anthony understood it or not, can't say he was not
warned that something was amiss.
Anthony didn't need a warning, since he knew that something was amiss
from the beginning ... else he'd have no reason to ask questions about
it.
What Anthony didn't and still
Chris writes:
Your legacy hardware finally gave up the ghost...
Uh, no. The production server is about 90 days old, and state of the
art. The drives are brand new.
--
Anthony
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Anthony Atkielski skrev:
Bernt Hansson writes:
What bios version is it?
The BIOS version is GG.06.04.
The Adaptec AIC-7880 Ultra BIOS version is v1.2S3-HP.
http://www.google.se/search?q=%22HP+Vectra+XU+6/200%22+-memory+-freebsdhl=svlr=start=10sa=N
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:46:40 +0100, Anthony Atkielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't really know for sure, because nothing is documented, and
nobody here knows anything.
So you keep telling us. So why do you bother posting in the first
place if you don't expect an answer that pleases
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
OK, well then that increases the chances that it is a driver issue
and reduces the chances that it is a hardware issue. Assuming your
termination is correct, that would increase chances it is a driver
issue even more.
That's rather what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a second problem with this machine: I can't get it to boot
from disk. It booted fine under NT, but it won't boot FreeBSD on its
own, nor was it willing to boot Mandrake Linux.
That is a common problem with SCSI adapters. To fix it, go into the
SCSI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernt Hansson writes:
What bios version is it?
The BIOS version is GG.06.04.
The Adaptec AIC-7880 Ultra BIOS version is v1.2S3-HP.
Well, now Anthony, that Adaptec AIC BIOS version indicates that it's a
HP-modded microcode in the controller. (that is what the
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:46:40AM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
But I don't really know for sure, because nothing is documented, and
nobody here knows anything.
Anthony,
Have you filed a PR for this problem? A search for your name in the FreeBSD
bug database and the freebsd-bugs archive
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
What I mean is temporarily pull the Quantum disk, load a scratch system
on the Seagate, run some disk testing utility or some such that beats on
the disk, and see if you get errors.
I can no longer look into that, as a more urgent problem has arisen: the
production
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:19:25 +0100, Anthony Atkielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It ran for eight years without errors.
On a different OS.
So your saying an anciety copy of NT is more reliable than a current
copy of FreeBSD?
Don't try and put your words in my mouth. On your ancient hardware
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
I have told him to go into his Vectra BIOS and limit the sync negotiation
on both disk drives to the same speed - 10Mbt. He refuses to try doing
this.
You're incorrect. I have _already_ done it, at your suggestion; it had
no effect, as I expected.
I've also told
Freminlins writes:
On a different OS.
Exactly. With _identical_ hardware. So if the hardware ran under the
other OS, but not under this OS, where do you look first for the
problem?
If your car runs perfectly for years with one brand of oil, and then you
change brands and the engine seizes,
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:25:14 +0100, Anthony Atkielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly. With _identical_ hardware. So if the hardware ran under the
other OS, but not under this OS, where do you look first for the
problem?
Both, actually.
If your car runs perfectly for years with one
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 10:13 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
[...]
Only one thing has changed in this machine: I replaced Windows NT with
FreeBSD. Windows NT had no problem with the SCSI drives; FreeBSD has a
problem with them. Therefore FreeBSD is defective.
Freminlins writes:
So stick with NT. Why would you change from something that runs
perfectly for 8 years?
I was able to retire the legacy applications on the machine and I wanted
to try something new.
That doesn't mean nothing has changed in 20 years, does it?
It means that the age of the
Peter Risdon writes:
1. Does either Windows 2003 or XP SP2, the only versions of Windows that
are meaningful comparisons with the latest versions of FreeBSD, fully
and without errors support this SCSI adapter and drive combination?
I don't know. But I'm not trying to run Windows 2003 or XP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
I have told him to go into his Vectra BIOS and limit the sync
negotiation on both disk drives to the same speed - 10Mbt. He
refuses to try doing this.
You're incorrect. I have _already_ done it, at your suggestion; it
had no effect, as I
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
The dmesg you sent indicated that the 2 disks were negotiating at
different sync rates. If you did limit them to 10mbt sync negotiation
as you stated, then why does the dmesg show them at different rates?
It dates from before the change. They both show 10.00 MB/s
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 11:40 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Peter Risdon writes:
1. Does either Windows 2003 or XP SP2, the only versions of Windows that
are meaningful comparisons with the latest versions of FreeBSD, fully
and without errors support this SCSI adapter and drive
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:26:13 +0100, Anthony Atkielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Freminlins writes:
No, FreeBSD doesn't work very well with the hardware. As a matter of
fact, it doesn't work very well with the hardware on my production
server, either.
So, you seem to have a problem.
It
Peter Risdon writes:
You _are_ trying to run a version of FreeBSD equivalent to 2003/XP.
No, I'm just running FreeBSD 5.3. It has nothing to do with Windows.
Because you were making comparisons with an 8 y.o. version of Windows.
Because it might be the case that you also have to run an 8
Freminlins writes:
So, you seem to have a problem.
Yes, FreeBSD seems to have a few bugs.
Review the supported hardware list on the FreeBSD site. If the
hardware is not on there, stop complaining.
The AIC7880 controller is on the list.
If it's supposed to be supported, raise it a PR and
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:51:36 +0100, Anthony Atkielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And _hope_?
Yes, hope someone looks into it. You get the support you paid for...
--
Anthony
Frem.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Anthony Atkielski at Wanadoo.FR wrote:
[ Not a lot ]
Wanadoo.FR - says it all, really.
No sane sysadmin accepts mail from that spam-house.
-- Dave
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
The dmesg you sent indicated that the 2 disks were negotiating at
different sync rates. If you did limit them to 10mbt sync
negotiation as you stated, then why does the dmesg show them at
different rates?
It dates from before the change.
On Mar 21, 2005, at 10:19 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Freminlins writes:
Alternatively, show us it is not a firmware problem first.
It ran for eight years without errors.
It's not throwing darts, it's sensible advice. NT is ancient, like
your firmware no doubt.
So your saying an anciety copy of
No, the only way to find the error is to find someone who knows the
FreeBSD code and is competent and willing to discuss the problem,
instead of people who spend their time blowing smoke in order to avoid
admitting that they haven't a ghost of a clue as to what the problem is.
You're looking
On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:14 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony -
I'm curious - with the issues you are having with the drives (SCSI
I think you mentioned) have you considered these ideas?
1. Upgrade the system BIOS
2. Upgrade the firmware in the SCSI controller
3.
On Mar 22, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
I have told him to go into his Vectra BIOS and limit the sync
negotiation
on both disk drives to the same speed - 10Mbt. He refuses to try
doing
this.
You're incorrect. I have _already_ done it, at your suggestion;
On Mar 22, 2005, at 4:25 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Freminlins writes:
On a different OS.
Exactly. With _identical_ hardware. So if the hardware ran under the
other OS, but not under this OS, where do you look first for the
problem?
Depends on the problem. Windows 98 needed more reboots than
On Mar 22, 2005, at 5:26 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Freminlins writes:
So stick with NT. Why would you change from something that runs
perfectly for 8 years?
I was able to retire the legacy applications on the machine and I
wanted
to try something new.
And you ran into a snag that you can't
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony -
I'm curious - with the issues you are having with the drives (SCSI
I think you mentioned) have you considered these ideas?
1. Upgrade the system BIOS
2. Upgrade the firmware in the SCSI controller
3. Upgrade the firmware in the
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
I have told him to go into his Vectra BIOS and limit the sync negotiation
on both disk drives to the same speed - 10Mbt. He refuses to try doing
this.
You're incorrect. I have _already_ done it, at your suggestion; it had
no effect, as
On Mar 22, 2005, at 5:40 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Peter Risdon writes:
2. Does a version of FreeBSD that is contemporary with NT and your
machine (ancient, unsupported, like NT) drive this hardware OK?
I don't know. Why should I have to run an eight-year-old version of
FreeBSD?
Instead of a
On Mar 22, 2005, at 5:46 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
That is also when I discovered how Microsoft gets away with telling the
world that they will fix any problem that you call into their
$250-and-incident
tech support people. If you present them with a problem they cannot
figure out, they will
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Peter Risdon writes:
You _are_ trying to run a version of FreeBSD equivalent to 2003/XP.
No, I'm just running FreeBSD 5.3. It has nothing to do with Windows.
Because you were making comparisons with an 8 y.o. version of Windows.
Because it might be the case
On Mar 22, 2005, at 6:39 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Peter Risdon writes:
You _are_ trying to run a version of FreeBSD equivalent to 2003/XP.
No, I'm just running FreeBSD 5.3. It has nothing to do with Windows.
This seems to be evidence that you're intentionally being obtuse.
Are you incapable
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
OK, well then that increases the chances that it is a driver issue
and reduces the chances that it is a hardware issue. Assuming your
termination is correct, that would increase chances it is a driver
issue even more.
That's rather what I've thought all along.
Jerry Bell writes:
You're looking for the reason that your older hardware runs on NT and
doesn't run on FreeBSD. Save any real hardware problem, the reason is
most certainly pure incompatibility between the hardware and the drivers
that are in FreeBSD.
No doubt.
When someone goes to write
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Or it gave warnings that NT didn't. Or it showed problems that NT
didn't.
Unless someone can tell me what these messages mean, they are useless to
me, warnings or not.
If it worked so well, why not put NT back on the machine and try
running a battery of tests and
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Depends on the problem. Windows 98 needed more reboots than NT did on
the same hardware. By your comparison they should be the same in
reliability and performance, no?
No, by my comparison they should experience the same hardware errors (or
absence thereof).
But
Bart Silverstrim writes:
And you ran into a snag that you can't work through.
Yes, at least not with the time I have available.
Most people if they were doing this on a lark would either replace the
hardware or try a different distro.
There's only one distro of FreeBSD. Replacing the
On Mar 22, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Or it gave warnings that NT didn't. Or it showed problems that NT
didn't.
Unless someone can tell me what these messages mean, they are useless
to
me, warnings or not.
If it worked so well, why not put NT back on
On Mar 22, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Depends on the problem. Windows 98 needed more reboots than NT did on
the same hardware. By your comparison they should be the same in
reliability and performance, no?
No, by my comparison they should experience the
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Instead of a five year old version of Windows? :-)
Why should it matter?
Because dumb terminals are just smart serial modems?
Serial modems are largely obsolete, too. And I haven't seen too many
modems that behave like VT100 terminals.
Because those specs haven't
Chris writes:
... and as of June 2005, MS retires 2000 - at least thats the projected
date.
So this hardware is still supported today. I suspect it may still be on
the HCL afterwards, too.
In addition, if you went back to NT - you would also know you are on
your own being that MS stopped
On Mar 22, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
And you ran into a snag that you can't work through.
Yes, at least not with the time I have available.
Classic tune. I play it a lot too.
Most people if they were doing this on a lark would either replace the
hardware
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Obvious concern is that it is a warning that something's wrong (or not
set up correctly) and it may fail or cause problems down the road.
Who can tell me _exactly_ what it means?
Well, is there a way to dump the code from that controller and compare
it to another
On Mar 22, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Instead of a five year old version of Windows? :-)
Why should it matter?
Comprehension on this matter is a little lagging. I seem to recall you
said you went from Windows 2000 (it's what, 5 years old?) to a new
On Mar 22, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Obvious concern is that it is a warning that something's wrong (or not
set up correctly) and it may fail or cause problems down the road.
Who can tell me _exactly_ what it means?
I don't know...I'm not on the devel
[SNIP]
Haven't you ever used Knoppix? It's liveboot.
This machine won't boot from a CD.
[SNIP]
Anthony
I don't really like adding trivial stuff to an already long thread, but...
with Knoppix, you can make floppies to boot from (they're on the cd)
and it will load the kernel and search for
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
... you simply refuse to believe the possibility that something could
have been wrong but NT didn't *TELL* you about it, and then want to
launch into an attack on the OS in a list where people are running
FreeBSD quite happily on a wide range of
I'm jumping into this late but this guy screams TROLL and i had to put
my comments in..
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:25:14 +0100, Anthony Atkielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Freminlins writes:
On a different OS.
Exactly. With _identical_ hardware. So if the hardware ran under the
other OS,
Chris writes:
... and as of June 2005, MS retires 2000 - at least thats the projected
date.
So this hardware is still supported today. I suspect it may still be on
the HCL afterwards, too.
In addition, if you went back to NT - you would also know you are on
your own being that MS stopped support
Anthony Atkielski skrev:
Show me that it's not a bug in FreeBSD first.
What bios version is it?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Duo writes:
And, herein lies the main and core behavioral issue at play: He is upset,
because he is used to a system, which is more apt to fail open, than
fail closed.
It's more complex than that:
(1) I don't know if anything is failing or not, because the messages
output by FreeBSD are
RacerX writes:
Now - Stop tossing legacy hardware at a new OS.
I tossed brand-new hardware at a new OS on the production machine, and
that's not working, either. Just exactly what _is_ supported by the OS,
if it can't handle new hardware and can't handle old hardware?
--
Anthony
Bernt Hansson writes:
What bios version is it?
The BIOS version is GG.06.04.
The Adaptec AIC-7880 Ultra BIOS version is v1.2S3-HP.
--
Anthony
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
RacerX writes:
1. Upgrade the system BIOS
2. Upgrade the firmware in the SCSI controller
3. Upgrade the firmware in the array (if applicable)
Ther may be a bug-a-boo in one of those. If you have not - consider doing
so and see if this may correct your issues.
Show me that it's not a bug in
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:39:11 +0100, Anthony Atkielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Show me that it's not a bug in FreeBSD first.
Alternatively, show us it is not a firmware problem first.
I never had the problem
in Windows NT.
Yawn. I had loads of problems with NT, virtually none with Win2K.
Freminlins writes:
Alternatively, show us it is not a firmware problem first.
It ran for eight years without errors.
It's not throwing darts, it's sensible advice. NT is ancient, like
your firmware no doubt.
So your saying an anciety copy of NT is more reliable than a current
copy of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony -
I'm curious - with the issues you are having with the drives (SCSI
I think you mentioned) have you considered these ideas?
1. Upgrade the system BIOS
2. Upgrade the firmware in the SCSI controller
3. Upgrade the firmware in the array (if applicable)
101 - 164 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
