Mark Bratcher wrote:
>
> This all works OK in kernel 2.2.17. But it fails in 2.4.4.
> > hdd: HP COLORADO 20GB, ATAPI TAPE drive
I did my own playing with 2.4.x on the 14gb model of this tape drive, all i've managed
to do is be able to write to the tape, but not read from it. Even in 2.2.x,
Mark Bratcher wrote:
This all works OK in kernel 2.2.17. But it fails in 2.4.4.
hdd: HP COLORADO 20GB, ATAPI TAPE drive
I did my own playing with 2.4.x on the 14gb model of this tape drive, all i've managed
to do is be able to write to the tape, but not read from it. Even in 2.2.x, putting
back down to 2.2.19, and you'll find you can read your tapes. From what
Andre explains, the HP Colorado 7/14 and 10/20 aren't completely compliant
with standards. If you run 2.2.19 and the ide patches, you'll have the
same problems.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Upgraded
back down to 2.2.19, and you'll find you can read your tapes. From what
Andre explains, the HP Colorado 7/14 and 10/20 aren't completely compliant
with standards. If you run 2.2.19 and the ide patches, you'll have the
same problems.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Hi,
Upgraded to
rates depending on where on the drive
you read from.
mike dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
the drive
you read from.
mike dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Alex Baretta wrote:
> [alex@localhost /home]$ free -m
> total used free sharedbuffers
> cached
> Mem: 251209 42 60
> 61 92
>
> I strongly doubt this can be a bug in the kernel. Could anyone
> explain to me why this might
Alex Baretta wrote:
[alex@localhost /home]$ free -m
total used free sharedbuffers
cached
Mem: 251209 42 60
61 92
I strongly doubt this can be a bug in the kernel. Could anyone
explain to me why this might happen?
Sorry Andre, but this one's a hoax.
http://service1.symantec.com/sarc/sarc.nsf/html/Virtual.Card.for.you.html
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > >This virus acts in the following manner: It sends
> > >itself automatically to all contacts on your list
> > >with the title "A Virtual
Sorry Andre, but this one's a hoax.
http://service1.symantec.com/sarc/sarc.nsf/html/Virtual.Card.for.you.html
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
This virus acts in the following manner: It sends
itself automatically to all contacts on your list
with the title "A Virtual Card for
wasn't
> flushed to the drive. Of course, if I'm having media troubles
> indicated by the first error above, then something else could be
> happening, I suppose. But does erroneous block flushing in the driver
> sound like a possibility?
Mike Dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this l
flushed to the drive. Of course, if I'm having media troubles
indicated by the first error above, then something else could be
happening, I suppose. But does erroneous block flushing in the driver
sound like a possibility?
Mike Dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Mike Dresser wrote:
>
> > When you go to 2.4.x, you'll likely run into the problem of your HP 14Gb not able
>to restore anymore. Same as if you apply the
> > linux-ide patches to 2.2.x
>
> Because the HP 14Gb is not a stand
Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings! You are certainly right here, at least in part. The ide
> patches for 2.2 definitely impair tape operation on these boxes.
> There was a crude workaround suggested on this list to use the
> ide-scsi driver -- this basically worked, but gave *many* error
>
f the spec? I recall reading on this list sometime
> back of similar workarounds to unusual drives.
When you go to 2.4.x, you'll likely run into the problem of your HP 14Gb not able to
restore anymore. Same as if you apply the
linux-ide patches to 2.2.x
Mike Dresser
sysadmin
Windsor Machi
of similar workarounds to unusual drives.
When you go to 2.4.x, you'll likely run into the problem of your HP 14Gb not able to
restore anymore. Same as if you apply the
linux-ide patches to 2.2.x
Mike Dresser
sysadmin
Windsor Machine Stamping
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
Camm Maguire wrote:
Greetings! You are certainly right here, at least in part. The ide
patches for 2.2 definitely impair tape operation on these boxes.
There was a crude workaround suggested on this list to use the
ide-scsi driver -- this basically worked, but gave *many* error
messages
Andre Hedrick wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Mike Dresser wrote:
When you go to 2.4.x, you'll likely run into the problem of your HP 14Gb not able
to restore anymore. Same as if you apply the
linux-ide patches to 2.2.x
Because the HP 14Gb is not a standard QIC device.
any change
the way i'm reading this, the problem is there's 65535 files in the directory
/where/postfix/lives. rm * or what have you, is going to take forever and
ever, and bog the machine down while its doing it. My understanding is you
could do the rm *, and instead of it reading the tree over and over
the way i'm reading this, the problem is there's 65535 files in the directory
/where/postfix/lives. rm * or what have you, is going to take forever and
ever, and bog the machine down while its doing it. My understanding is you
could do the rm *, and instead of it reading the tree over and over
f with make/make-3.79.1.tar.gz, works. Now, if i'd remembered to
turn on bin mode, I'd have
a useable file.
Mike Dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
I ran into this problem awhile ago on a HP 7/14 as well, with the ide patches
as far back as 2.2.17. Reported it, didn't get much in responses though :/
I'm just about at the point of giving up on the drives, but not due to Linux.
Those drives are not very durable, tend to die within a year
I ran into this problem awhile ago on a HP 7/14 as well, with the ide patches
as far back as 2.2.17. Reported it, didn't get much in responses though :/
I'm just about at the point of giving up on the drives, but not due to Linux.
Those drives are not very durable, tend to die within a year
but supposed to be pc66 - hyundai ram runs at 100 just
fine, but won't go any higher), and maybe your new 64 megger can't do it.
Mike Dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
runs at 100 just
fine, but won't go any higher), and maybe your new 64 megger can't do it.
Mike Dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> Even though I see the error message, I think that UDMA 4 / ATA 66 must actually have
>been set, because hdparm now reports cache reads at 143.82 MB/sec and disk reads at
>15.76 MB/Ssec. hdparm also reports that the HDD is in UDMA mode 4.
This seems low, I have a pair of IBM DJNA-352030 20
Even though I see the error message, I think that UDMA 4 / ATA 66 must actually have
been set, because hdparm now reports cache reads at 143.82 MB/sec and disk reads at
15.76 MB/Ssec. hdparm also reports that the HDD is in UDMA mode 4.
This seems low, I have a pair of IBM DJNA-352030 20 gig's
Agreed. I've got one of these beasts running NT Server, dual 433 non o/c,
4x12.7 gig software raid. Before i put the Promise Ultra/33 card in, i was
using the HPT366. Random lockups every couple weeks. Stopped using the
HPT366, machine is stable now. In hindsight, I think the HPT366 was the
Well, i just checked ide-dma.c, and the WDC 21600 isn't listed. 31600 is, but no
21600
I've been using the 21600 for awhile now with DMA enabled, under reasonable load,
and it seems to hold up.
Guennadi: I don't suppose you can get your hands on a different size/brand drive
long enough to plug
Now, the question is, can we trust a hard drive manufacturer support tech to know what
they're talking about, with evidence to the contrary? :)
Somewhat like the 6 days i spent with a Cisco 802 and an 804, trying to get a link up.
Set it to National ISDN-1, dial 9 before dialing outbound
Now, the question is, can we trust a hard drive manufacturer support tech to know what
they're talking about, with evidence to the contrary? :)
Somewhat like the 6 days i spent with a Cisco 802 and an 804, trying to get a link up.
Set it to National ISDN-1, dial 9 before dialing outbound
Well, i just checked ide-dma.c, and the WDC 21600 isn't listed. 31600 is, but no
21600
I've been using the 21600 for awhile now with DMA enabled, under reasonable load,
and it seems to hold up.
Guennadi: I don't suppose you can get your hands on a different size/brand drive
long enough to plug
Agreed. I've got one of these beasts running NT Server, dual 433 non o/c,
4x12.7 gig software raid. Before i put the Promise Ultra/33 card in, i was
using the HPT366. Random lockups every couple weeks. Stopped using the
HPT366, machine is stable now. In hindsight, I think the HPT366 was the
I've got a motherboard with the same Via686a chipset, and i've never had a
problem with DMA when it's enabled.
Using a pair of 20 gig IBM drives on the secondary, and a 3.2 quantum primary,
17.2 gig maxtor. All using DMA, all work. Using ultra/33, I wasn't even
aware this chipset is ultra/66
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi
> > will try tonight... and will let you know tomorrow...
> ... Nop, it didn't work. Mike and everybody having experience / knowledge of Western
>Digital Caviar AC21600H... If you compare WD's documents at:
> http://www.westerndigital.com/service/FAQ/dtr.html
You're going to get a chuckle out of this one, i think. I was using my main
fileserver at home(different box from
the ones we're talking about)last night, and figured i'd poke around, do some speed
benchmarks for the hell of it. At
one point months, i had everything running in DMA mode,
You're going to get a chuckle out of this one, i think. I was using my main
fileserver at home(different box from
the ones we're talking about)last night, and figured i'd poke around, do some speed
benchmarks for the hell of it. At
one point months, i had everything running in DMA mode,
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Hi
will try tonight... and will let you know tomorrow...
... Nop, it didn't work. Mike and everybody having experience / knowledge of Western
Digital Caviar AC21600H... If you compare WD's documents at:
http://www.westerndigital.com/service/FAQ/dtr.html
and
I've got a motherboard with the same Via686a chipset, and i've never had a
problem with DMA when it's enabled.
Using a pair of 20 gig IBM drives on the secondary, and a 3.2 quantum primary,
17.2 gig maxtor. All using DMA, all work. Using ultra/33, I wasn't even
aware this chipset is ultra/66
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> > Chipset is a 430FX, Same hard drive as what you have. Pentium > 133, 48 meg ram.
>Kernel 2.2.17 with raid patch, and ide patch.
>
> I don't think I need tha raid patch, do I?
No, its just left overs from my playing with a Promise Ultra/66 card.
pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 *mdma2
so my firmware is actually one version older than yours, and allows me to set DMA.
And has the associated speed increase/lower cpu
> Model=DW CCA1206H0, FwRev=420.P980,
> SerialNo=DWW-3M6
so my firmware is actually one version older than yours, and allows me to set DMA.
And has the associated speed increase/lower cpu
Model=DW CCA1206H0, FwRev=420.P980,
SerialNo=DWW-3M63
What brand is your motherboard?
Mike Dresser
-
To unsubscribe from
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Thanks!
Chipset is a 430FX, Same hard drive as what you have. Pentium 133, 48 meg ram.
Kernel 2.2.17 with raid patch, and ide patch.
I don't think I need tha raid patch, do I?
No, its just left overs from my playing with a Promise Ultra/66 card. Even
I reported this a few weeks ago or so, it seems that HP 7/14's are not exactly
standard. First is the proprietory tape size. Second is that the drive doesn't
support locking the tape in, but reports it as possible. At least, that's what i
gather from Jens's posting.
To be honest, I'm not
I reported this a few weeks ago or so, it seems that HP 7/14's are not exactly
standard. First is the proprietory tape size. Second is that the drive doesn't
support locking the tape in, but reports it as possible. At least, that's what i
gather from Jens's posting.
To be honest, I'm not
Michael Rothwell wrote:
> Just some thoughts from 35 years ago. Please add your $0.02.
What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
=)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at
check if DMA mode is still on, on your hard drive. I'm trying to remember if
that behaviour changed for 2.2.17
LA Walsh wrote:
> I skimmed over the archives and didn't find a mention of this. I thought
> I'd noticed this when I first installed 2217, but I was too busy to verify
> it at the
check if DMA mode is still on, on your hard drive. I'm trying to remember if
that behaviour changed for 2.2.17
LA Walsh wrote:
I skimmed over the archives and didn't find a mention of this. I thought
I'd noticed this when I first installed 2217, but I was too busy to verify
it at the time.
Michael Rothwell wrote:
Just some thoughts from 35 years ago. Please add your $0.02.
What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
=)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at
> > ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 1e, key = 5, asc = 20, ascq = 0
> > ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 8, key = 5, asc = 2c, ascq = 0
> > ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 1e, key = 5, asc = 20, ascq = 0
> >
> > (normal, i get those cause of the lock drive/unlock drive, which the
> > drive
of Seagate to include support for someone else's mistake =)
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02 2000, Mike Dresser wrote:
> > I'm currently running 2.4.0test10, running backups onto an IDE HP 7/14
> > gb drive. Using tar -cpvf /dev/ht0 myfiles backs up fine, no errors.
> >
>
though. Nice of Seagate to include support for someone else's mistake =)
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02 2000, Mike Dresser wrote:
I'm currently running 2.4.0test10, running backups onto an IDE HP 7/14
gb drive. Using tar -cpvf /dev/ht0 myfiles backs up fine, no errors.
But..
promise
to spend the money to do it right.
Hoping for a solution,
Mike Dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
to spend the money to do it right.
Hoping for a solution,
Mike Dresser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
54 matches
Mail list logo
