[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Compaq ProLiant ML350

On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 08:55:38PM +0100, Lee Elliott wrote:
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 09:03:43PM +0100, Lee Elliott wrote:
> > > There is an option for Compaq Smart Array support when compiling
> > > kernels, so you may need to compile a kernel with this support.  There
> > > seems to be a catch-22 situation here though - you compile a kernel with
> > > Smart Array support, but it's got to sit on a drive that needs Smart
> > > Array support to be accessed.  Presumably though, if the ntloader, which
> > > I doubt has special Smart Array support, can be found off the array,
> > > there's no reason why a linux loader couldn't be used instead.
> > 
> > Dunno if this applies to Compaq Smart Raid, but IBM ServeRAID didn't
> > work with LILO at all.  It worked fine with GRUB, which after cursing
> > the docs I found easier to use.
> > 
> > HTH,
> I wonder if that's due to the LILO 1024 cylinder limit?  I've never
> looked at the device parameters presented by a raid controller - must
> have a gander.  Because the raid controller is presenting a
> logical/virtual HD, I'd expect the same problem regardless of which
> controller was used.

It seemed to have something to do with the CHS translation; I can
assure you that I re-RTFM the lilo docs several times and used all
sorts of lilo config directives I'd never used before :)  The furthest
I could get was LI- (FWIW I've been using LILO for 5+ years though I
wouldn't call myself a guru).

I really do like GRUB; it's especially nice on a dual boot machine.
It also presents a nicer interface at boot which makes my boss happy
during the infrequent reboots that these servers experience ...

Nathan Norman         "Eschew Obfuscation"          Network Engineer
GPG Key ID 1024D/51F98BB7            http://home.midco.net/~nnorman/
Key fingerprint = C5F4 A147 416C E0BF AB73  8BEF F0C8 255C 51F9 8BB7

Attachment: pgpcHkTOLDBpV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: