From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rolf Eike Beer Subject: Re: Booting from or using a Compaq RA4100 Array Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:45:16 +0100 Message-ID: <200512290845.17192@bilbo.math.uni-mannheim.de> References: <1135801791.9541.12.camel@gateway.markschaefer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2325329.3DqnzuOCAL"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.sf-mail.de ([62.27.20.61]:10408 "EHLO mail.sf-mail.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932575AbVL2Hp2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:45:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1135801791.9541.12.camel@gateway.markschaefer.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Schaefer Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org --nextPart2325329.3DqnzuOCAL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Mark Schaefer wrote: >Hi, > >I have a couple of these arrays I purchased from eBay. Apparently, they >don't work with any other controller card, except cpqfc, which is >unsupported in the 2.6 kernel. Has anyone gotten these working on a >different card? If so, is it possible to boot off of this array? I'm >using Emulex LP8000's, but have the 64-bit/66MHz Compaq cards for >configuration. > > James Bottomley mentioned that it supported the SCC-2 spec, which is >now deprecated, and reading the spec, it seems as though I wouldn't be >able to boot directly from the array. > >Thanks in advance for any pointers. I'm now quoting mkp: =2D-- But the other reason the cpqfcTS driver is special is the RA4100 array. =A0The two were sold as a packaged solution. =A0The RA4100 isn't a "real" fibre channel disk device. =A0It represents itself as a TYPE_RAID as opposed to TYPE_DISK. =A0So even if you had my driver in 2.6.5, you wouldn't be able to use it. =2D-- What he was talking about as his driver is a replacement he writes for cpqf= c.=20 cpqfc was deleted from 2.6 because it was horribly written and currently=20 broken. The 2.4 version is the same, but it might work because the 2.4=20 infrastructure is different from the 2.6 one. Eike --nextPart2325329.3DqnzuOCAL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDs5QNXKSJPmm5/E4RAtzAAJ4v+PI2EJF1RON9/P1DHMsR4/UWbwCeLseu pWaJa6OxzqJqkws82iY3skM= =zprp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2325329.3DqnzuOCAL--