All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Worth attempting an Ultra 30 install with 1.1???
@ 1998-11-17 16:29 Rick Richardson
  1998-11-18  9:52 ` David S. Miller
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rick Richardson @ 1998-11-17 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ultralinux


Subject says it all.  Is 1.1 (from the mirrors) ready to be installed via TFTP
on an Ultra 30, or should I wait for awhile?

-Rick

-- 
Rick "The Hack" Richardson  rick@dgii.com http://RickRichardson.freeservers.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Worth attempting an Ultra 30 install with 1.1???
  1998-11-17 16:29 Worth attempting an Ultra 30 install with 1.1??? Rick Richardson
@ 1998-11-18  9:52 ` David S. Miller
  1998-11-18 10:19 ` Svante Sormark
  1998-11-19 14:26 ` Derrick J Brashear
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David S. Miller @ 1998-11-18  9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ultralinux

   From: rick@dgii.com (Rick Richardson)
   Date: 	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:29:35 -0600 (CST)

   Subject says it all.  Is 1.1 (from the mirrors) ready to be
   installed via TFTP on an Ultra 30, or should I wait for awhile?

It should work.  There were a few reports with boot loader problems,
but these few cases were curable just by moving simms around and a fix
will be available soon.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Worth attempting an Ultra 30 install with 1.1???
  1998-11-17 16:29 Worth attempting an Ultra 30 install with 1.1??? Rick Richardson
  1998-11-18  9:52 ` David S. Miller
@ 1998-11-18 10:19 ` Svante Sormark
  1998-11-19 14:26 ` Derrick J Brashear
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Svante Sormark @ 1998-11-18 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ultralinux


do it. just make sure the simms are in the right slots. ( ie. not the way
they were when deliverd...)

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Rick Richardson wrote:

>
>Subject says it all.  Is 1.1 (from the mirrors) ready to be installed via TFTP
>on an Ultra 30, or should I wait for awhile?
>
>-Rick
>
>-- 
>Rick "The Hack" Richardson  rick@dgii.com http://RickRichardson.freeservers.com
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------  
|  Svante Sörmark  |  Chalmers IT -avdelning  | utvecklare | 0707 538336 | 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------  

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Worth attempting an Ultra 30 install with 1.1???
  1998-11-17 16:29 Worth attempting an Ultra 30 install with 1.1??? Rick Richardson
  1998-11-18  9:52 ` David S. Miller
  1998-11-18 10:19 ` Svante Sormark
@ 1998-11-19 14:26 ` Derrick J Brashear
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Derrick J Brashear @ 1998-11-19 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ultralinux


Incidentally, I tried 1.1 on 2 different Ultra 30's yesterday. It worked
on the one with a single ncr53c8xx (875, IIRC) and 2 disks on that. I
also tried it on one of the machines we have with 3 ncr53c8xxs (file
server configuration, raid arrays on 2 of the ncrs) and it identified 3
scsi hosts and got unhappy, didn't boot further, and started getting scsi
errors. This was both with the raid arrays attached, and with nothing on
the second two controllers (e.g. using only the internal).

When I finish using the disk on the machine I have it attached to now,
I'll try to collect the errors.

-D

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~1998-11-19 14:26 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1998-11-17 16:29 Worth attempting an Ultra 30 install with 1.1??? Rick Richardson
1998-11-18  9:52 ` David S. Miller
1998-11-18 10:19 ` Svante Sormark
1998-11-19 14:26 ` Derrick J Brashear

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.