Re: MILO size problems
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Christian Meder wrote:
> > > Is there anywhere a document on the current status of SRMs for the
> > > different subarchs ? Which platforms are still depending on MILOs ?
> >
> > >From what I've been told, XL is the only architecture that has no SRM
> > available. I've put a pointer to the firmware updates page on
> > Compaq's website in the install documentation.
>
> So what's the correct way to boot an XL into Linux ?
Don't forget about the UX boards with ARCSBios, MILO will still be
necessary for them. Rumor has it that Q has SRM console for the XL series
(as all the testing was done on OpenVMS) the problem is getting them to
release it. Also at this point the UP1000 (Nautilus) is dependent on APB,
though that will be changing.
> > The cases where MILO is still useful are (and I guess this should go
> > in the documentation) where the user:
> >
> > a) is dual-booting with NT on a half-flash machine
> >
> > b) is dual-booting with NT from a single disk on a full-flash machine
> >
> > c) is reinstalling onto a DOS-partitioned disk with existing
> > partitions
> >
> > d) has a half-flash machine and doesn't want to reflash their
> > firmware (or has a full-flash machine and can't figure out how to
> > switch to SRM from AlphaBIOS :)
e) Running from a particular device that SRM doesn't currently support
(certain Raid controllers and SCSI cards etc...).
> > > build them for quite some time after the i386 release. DP264, Nautilus
> > > and book1 didn't compile so we left them out. Like I said above
DP264 and Nautilus didn't compile with 2.2.14?
> > Ah, yeah, nautilus and dp264 both need some patches, which will be in
> > 2.2.15.
>
> But potato will use 2.2.14 presumably.
--rdp
Rich Payne
rpayne@alphalinux.org www.alphalinux.org
Reply to: