Re: Compaq Proliant DL320 installation.
The 5500 is a bigger version (4 ppro cpus?) of the 2500 I believe, I dont see
it being a problem, what I had to do is start with the 2 compact boot
floppies, then switch to the cdrom later.
This is due to problems with the compaq scsi raid controller not being seen
in a standard boot kernel and /or a prob with the onboard ncr scsi controller.
As for diagnostics u can get bootable floppies to check stuff out on
hp/compaq's web site. As far as I know they will work with the 5500, they
certainly do with the 2500.
My understanding would be that the latest smarctstart cd is backwards
compatible with the older kit. The utilities were just updated over the years
to reflect new hardware as it came along, reading the compaq revision data
suggests this anyway. Certainly my ver 5.40 dl320 smartstart cds work in the
1600r's and 2500r's i have.
regards
Thing
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:17, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:16:38PM +0100, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 at 10:28:03 +0100, samuele@cln.it wrote:
> > > I am just installing Woody on a Compaq Proliant DL320 server (PIII
>
> I'm trying to get an old proliant 5500 up as well ;-)
>
> > > 1.13GHz), and the various Compaq Agents drivers are avaiable for
> > > different releases of RedHat, SuSE and some other distros except
> > > Debian.
>
> having a hand would be nice...
>
> > I haven't tried any Compaq "agents" on it though. I have tried
> > lm-sensors but I haven't succeeded, even with some help from lm-sensors
> > people. Maybe Compaq has modified the hardware in some not typical
> > way...
>
> You can bet on that. Compaqs seem to have many functions not in
> hardware but in software in a hidden disk partition, including
> disk partitioning software *eek*. My best bet so far is to find
> the right "SmartStart" CD (how?) and go from there. Afterwards,
> there are allegedly a number of Linux programs that can do
> hardware diagnosis and such... but I didn't find those yet.
>
>
> Good luck,
> --Toni++
Reply to: