Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Ole Aamot]

We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.

Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
disks (identified as hde, hdf, hdg, hdh).

[root@nngds1 /root]# cat /proc/ide/hd[abcefgh]/geometry
physical     148945/16/63
logical      9345/255/63
physical     148945/16/63
logical      9345/255/63
physical     148945/16/63
logical      9345/255/63
physical     148945/16/63
logical      148945/16/63
physical     148945/16/63
logical      148945/16/63
physical     148945/16/63
logical      148945/16/63
physical     148945/16/63
logical      148945/16/63


Output from hdparm -i /dev/hd[abcefgh]:

/dev/hda:

 Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAL154
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5

/dev/hdb:

 Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAR909
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5

/dev/hdc:

 Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAS836
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5

/dev/hde:

 Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAL701
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5

/dev/hdf:

 Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAR606
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5

/dev/hdg:

 Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAL151
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5

/dev/hdh:

 Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAR624
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5


---

Two types of disks:
(geometry of the first is correctly detected, the second isn't)

[root@nngds1 /root]# hdparm /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
 multcount    =  0 (off)
 I/O support  =  0 (default 16-bit)
 unmaskirq    =  0 (off)
 using_dma    =  1 (on)
 keepsettings =  0 (off)
 nowerr       =  0 (off)
 readonly     =  0 (off)
 readahead    =  8 (on)
 geometry     = 9345/255/63, sectors = 150136560, start = 0

[root@nngds1 /root]# hdparm /dev/hde

/dev/hde:
 multcount    =  0 (off)
 I/O support  =  0 (default 16-bit)
 unmaskirq    =  0 (off)
 using_dma    =  1 (on)
 keepsettings =  0 (off)
 nowerr       =  0 (off)
 readonly     =  0 (off)
 readahead    =  8 (on)
 geometry     = 17873/16/63, sectors = 150136560, start = 0


The machine runs RedHat 7.0 with RHN upgrades if it means anything.

-- 
Ole Aamot                                      mailto:ole@linpro.no
LinPro AS                                      http://www.linpro.no
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andre Hedrick]

There is not problem, the BIOS in the addon cards/promise do not
translation for you like the mainboard does.
If you are worried pass the geometry by hand

hd{e,f,g,h}=9345,255,63

Cheers,

On 31 Jan 2001, Ole Aamot wrote:

> We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
> and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.
> 
> Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
> disks (identified as hde, hdf, hdg, hdh).
> 
> [root@nngds1 /root]# cat /proc/ide/hd[abcefgh]/geometry
> physical     148945/16/63
> logical      9345/255/63
> physical     148945/16/63
> logical      9345/255/63
> physical     148945/16/63
> logical      9345/255/63
> physical     148945/16/63
> logical      148945/16/63
> physical     148945/16/63
> logical      148945/16/63
> physical     148945/16/63
> logical      148945/16/63
> physical     148945/16/63
> logical      148945/16/63
> 
> 
> Output from hdparm -i /dev/hd[abcefgh]:
> 
> /dev/hda:
> 
>  Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAL154
>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
>  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
>  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
>  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
>  PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>  DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5
> 
> /dev/hdb:
> 
>  Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAR909
>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
>  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
>  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
>  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
>  PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>  DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5
> 
> /dev/hdc:
> 
>  Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAS836
>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
>  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
>  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
>  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
>  PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>  DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5
> 
> /dev/hde:
> 
>  Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAL701
>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
>  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
>  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
>  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
>  PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>  DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5
> 
> /dev/hdf:
> 
>  Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAR606
>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
>  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
>  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
>  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
>  PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>  DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5
> 
> /dev/hdg:
> 
>  Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAL151
>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
>  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
>  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
>  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
>  PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>  DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5
> 
> /dev/hdh:
> 
>  Model=IBM-DTLA-307075, FwRev=TXAOA50C, SerialNo=YSDYSFAR624
>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
>  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
>  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=-66060037, LBA=yes, LBAsects=150136560
>  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
>  PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>  DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Two types of disks:
> (geometry of the first is correctly detected, the second isn't)
> 
> [root@nngds1 /root]# hdparm /dev/hda
> 
> /dev/hda:
>  multcount    =  0 (off)
>  I/O support  =  0 (default 16-bit)
>  unmaskirq    =  0 (off)
>  using_dma    =  1 (on)
>  keepsettings =  0 (off)
>  nowerr       =  0 (off)
>  readonly     =  0 (off)
>  readahead    =  8 (on)
>  geometry     = 9345/255/63, sectors = 150136560, start = 0
> 
> [root@nngds1 /root]# hdparm /dev/hde
> 
> /dev/hde:
>  multcount    =  0 (off)
>  I/O support  =  0 (default 16-bit)
>  unmaskirq    =  0 (off)
>  using_dma    =  1 (on)
>  keepsettings =  0 (off)
>  nowerr       =  0 (off)
>  readonly     =  0 (off)
>  readahead    =  8 (on)
>  geometry     = 17873/16/63, sectors = 150136560, start = 0
> 
> 
> The machine runs RedHat 7.0 with RHN upgrades if it means anything.
> 
> -- 
> Ole Aamot                                      mailto:ole@linpro.no
> LinPro AS                                      http://www.linpro.no
> 

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Paul Flinders]

Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:

> Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
> of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?

FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Matthias Andree]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> 
> > Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
> > of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
> 
> FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID

But Fake-RAID is CHEAP to get two additional UDMA-5 capable channels :-)
Just jumper for normal ATA/100 mode.

-- 
Matthias Andree
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Paul Flinders]

Matthias Andree wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> >
> > > Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
> > > of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
> >
> > FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID
>
> But Fake-RAID is CHEAP to get two additional UDMA-5 capable channels :-)
> Just jumper for normal ATA/100 mode.

The MSI 6321 motherboard *doesn't* *have* an option to run the chipset in
"normal" ATA/100 mode, that's the problem.

Andre didn't really answer my question so, to re-phrase - can the 20265
on these boards be set up as a "normal" 2-port ATA/100 controller in software.
The BIOS only enables one port - the second port's "enable bit" is showing
that it is disabled. There is _no_ BIOS option to run it in non-RAID mode
and no jumpers on the board to do so either.

If it can, then I'll happily write the code myself and maintain a local patch
if needs be but I need to know what bits to poke out of what port and in what
order. If it can't be done at least I'll _know_ that it can't be done.

I've already tried the MSI support mail address and been met with stunning
silence.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andre Hedrick]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Matthias Andree wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> > 
> > > Talking of the Promise are there any plans to support re-enabling
> > > of the 2nd channel for boards which have an on-board FastTrak?
> > 
> > FastTrak == Ultra - Fake-RAID
> 
> But Fake-RAID is CHEAP to get two additional UDMA-5 capable channels :-)
> Just jumper for normal ATA/100 mode.

Please create a documnet not and send it to me ;-)


Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andries.Brouwer]

Ole Aamot writes:

	We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
	and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.

	Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
	disks (identified as hde, hdf, hdg, hdh).

But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.

Andries


[Don't forget: (i) geometry does not exist (ii) hdparm is just
some user program.]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:

> Ole Aamot writes:
> 
> 	We experience trouble with the Promise (PDC20265) IDE controller
> 	and seven 75GB IBM disks on a single CPU (Pentium-III) server.
> 
> 	Linux 2.4.1 fails to detect correct geometry for the four last
> 	disks (identified as hde, hdf, hdg, hdh).
> 
> But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.

We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.

Cheers,

> Andries
> 
> 
> [Don't forget: (i) geometry does not exist (ii) hdparm is just
> some user program.]
> 

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Rupa Schomaker]

Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:


> > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
> 
> We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.

In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
different geometry.  How could that be?  Move the "virgin" drive to
the motherboard IDE controller and suddenly the geometry is the same.
Use fdisk and partition the disk, write it, and then move to the
promise controller and the "correct" geometry was used (that is, it is
now the same as when hooked up to the motherboard ide controller).

Why was it important to me?  I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to
have the same geometry so that the partition info is the same between
the two drives.   Makes life easier.

-- 
-rupa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andre Hedrick]

On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:

> Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:
> 
> 
> > > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > > I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
> > 
> > We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.
> 
> In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> different geometry.  How could that be?  Move the "virgin" drive to
> the motherboard IDE controller and suddenly the geometry is the same.
> Use fdisk and partition the disk, write it, and then move to the
> promise controller and the "correct" geometry was used (that is, it is
> now the same as when hooked up to the motherboard ide controller).
> 
> Why was it important to me?  I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to
> have the same geometry so that the partition info is the same between
> the two drives.   Makes life easier.

Please read the above and pass the geometry to the kernel.
Mother boards have to do a translation to use the drive completely.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Rupa Schomaker]

Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:

> On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
> 
> > Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > > > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > > > I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
> > > 
> > > We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.
> > 
> > In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> > different geometry.  How could that be?  Move the "virgin" drive to
> > the motherboard IDE controller and suddenly the geometry is the same.
> > Use fdisk and partition the disk, write it, and then move to the
> > promise controller and the "correct" geometry was used (that is, it is
> > now the same as when hooked up to the motherboard ide controller).
> > 
> > Why was it important to me?  I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to
> > have the same geometry so that the partition info is the same between
> > the two drives.   Makes life easier.
> 
> Please read the above and pass the geometry to the kernel.
> Mother boards have to do a translation to use the drive completely.

Andre,

But now it doesn't matter.  The drive was tainted (fdisk run while
attached to the mainboard controller) and now that geometry is
"stuck".  <shrug>  I was mostly explaining why it is nice to get the
same geometry on two identical drives (RAID1 is easier for the human
to deal with).

-- 
-rupa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andre Hedrick]

On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:

> But now it doesn't matter.  The drive was tainted (fdisk run while
> attached to the mainboard controller) and now that geometry is
> "stuck".  <shrug>  I was mostly explaining why it is nice to get the
> same geometry on two identical drives (RAID1 is easier for the human
> to deal with).

It doesn't but I got out of the geometry business two+ years ago...
Andries (Mr. FDisk) Brouwer is the man......

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Mark Lord]

Simple solution is to have kernel fall-back to LBA style
translations instead of kernel "basic" translations.
This would make it match the first two "BIOS" drives
on most systems, and not really hurt anything in most cases.

Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
info on ALL drives.
-- 
Mark Lord
Real-Time Remedies Inc.
mlord@pobox.com


Rupa Schomaker wrote:
> 
> Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:
> 
> > > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > > I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
> >
> > We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.
> 
> In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> different geometry.  How could that be?  Move the "virgin" drive to
> the motherboard IDE controller and suddenly the geometry is the same.
> Use fdisk and partition the disk, write it, and then move to the
> promise controller and the "correct" geometry was used (that is, it is
> now the same as when hooked up to the motherboard ide controller).
> 
> Why was it important to me?  I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to
> have the same geometry so that the partition info is the same between
> the two drives.   Makes life easier.
> 
> --
> -rupa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:

> Simple solution is to have kernel fall-back to LBA style
> translations instead of kernel "basic" translations.
> This would make it match the first two "BIOS" drives
> on most systems, and not really hurt anything in most cases.
> 
> Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
> which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
> info on ALL drives.

We did that once Mark and people bitch as squealed like a stuck pig!

Also, Linus is still on the line and holding that linux has a policy of
not policies.

Maybe a compile option could help...

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Dan Hollis]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:
> > Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
> > which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
> > info on ALL drives.
> Maybe a compile option could help...

kernel parameter passed via lilo...

-Dan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andre Hedrick]

Okay......

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark Lord wrote:
> > > Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
> > > which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
> > > info on ALL drives.
> > Maybe a compile option could help...
> 
> kernel parameter passed via lilo...
> 
> -Dan
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Peter Samuelson]

[Rupa Schomaker]
> In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> different geometry.
[...]
> I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to have the same geometry so
> that the partition info is the same between the two drives.  Makes
> life easier.

If that's what you needed, you could have used 'dd' to copy the
partition table from one drive to the other.  Easier than going in and
re-cabling just to fool your BIOS.

Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andries.Brouwer]

> In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> different geometry.  How could that be?

A FAQ.
Read "14.2 Nonproblem: Identical disks have different geometry?"
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/Large-Disk-14.html#ss14.2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Andries.Brouwer]

Mark Lord writes:

> Even better would be to add a stage in front of the fall-back,
> which queries the BIOS (from kernel startup code) for translation
> info on ALL drives.

It doesn't work.
I wrote the code and asked people to test it.
So many BIOS quirks.

(Numbering of drives depends on setup options, and on whether
there are SCSI disks mentioned in the BIOS setup,
there are off-by-one errors in several BIOSes,
several versions of Phoenix extensions are implemented etc.
It is really not worth trying to go this way. It fails.)

No, geometry does not exist, and also BIOS drivers have come
to the same conclusion.

Since nothing depends on it, there is no reason to want
any geometry in particular.

Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/