On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> Like I wrote - I did not get to locks on fsck but then stuff was weird
> and if I would press sufficiently long maybe I would. I still had some
> use for my file systems so I did not try hard enough. Maybe we need
> black hens on the top of the
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> > Well, the situation is improving, I suppose ...
> >
> > Under kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1, a dd of about 1 4k blocks would cause
> > the system to go technicolor and lock up.
>
> On UP1100 which I have here somehow this looks a bit different
Well, the situation is improving, I suppose ...
Under kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1, a dd of about 1 4k blocks would cause
the system to go technicolor and lock up.
Now, under 2.4.1-ac13, at about 11000 blocks, it goes technicolor, but
doesn't lock up until somewhere between 13000 and 2.
Well, the situation is improving, I suppose ...
Under kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1, a dd of about 1 4k blocks would cause
the system to go technicolor and lock up.
Now, under 2.4.1-ac13, at about 11000 blocks, it goes technicolor, but
doesn't lock up until somewhere between 13000 and 2.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
Well, the situation is improving, I suppose ...
Under kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1, a dd of about 1 4k blocks would cause
the system to go technicolor and lock up.
On UP1100 which I have here somehow this looks a bit different _after_
I put
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
Like I wrote - I did not get to locks on fsck but then stuff was weird
and if I would press sufficiently long maybe I would. I still had some
use for my file systems so I did not try hard enough. Maybe we need
black hens on the top of the magic
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Sorry, but the ALI code was written based upon ix86 :-(
> Where were you guys during 2.3.X development?
We had lots of problems with the few 2.3.x kernels we downloaded; and R
effort was needed elsewhere.
Would it help if a UP1100 was somehow made
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
Sorry, but the ALI code was written based upon ix86 :-(
Where were you guys during 2.3.X development?
We had lots of problems with the few 2.3.x kernels we downloaded; and RD
effort was needed elsewhere.
Would it help if a UP1100 was somehow made
Sorry, but the ALI code was written based upon ix86 :-(
Where were you guys during 2.3.X development?
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, John Jasen wrote:
>
> The system in question is an API UP1100 based system, running 4 Maxtor
> 40gb IDE drives off the ALI M15x3 chipset.
>
> This applies to kernel 2.4.0
The system in question is an API UP1100 based system, running 4 Maxtor
40gb IDE drives off the ALI M15x3 chipset.
This applies to kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1.
The drives are identified as follows from hdparm:
Model=Maxtor 54098H8, FwRev=DAC10SC0, SerialNo=K80F1ZFC
Is also has an Adaptec 29160
The system in question is an API UP1100 based system, running 4 Maxtor
40gb IDE drives off the ALI M15x3 chipset.
This applies to kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1.
The drives are identified as follows from hdparm:
Model=Maxtor 54098H8, FwRev=DAC10SC0, SerialNo=K80F1ZFC
Is also has an Adaptec 29160
Sorry, but the ALI code was written based upon ix86 :-(
Where were you guys during 2.3.X development?
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, John Jasen wrote:
The system in question is an API UP1100 based system, running 4 Maxtor
40gb IDE drives off the ALI M15x3 chipset.
This applies to kernel 2.4.0 and
12 matches
Mail list logo
