Subject: Re: RAIDFrame Problems...
To: Matthias Scheler <email@example.com>
From: Alex Dumitriu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/03/2005 19:01:53
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 23:46:53 +0000, Matthias Scheler <email@example.com> wrote:
> is there any reason why you didn't send the answer to the list?
I actually did, but I forgot to reply to all the first time, so I sent
it separately. Sorry for the confusion.
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 06:17:58PM -0500, Alex Dumitriu wrote:
> > > Is the system running XFree86? I ask because you won't see the kernel
> > > debugger's prompt if the system drops into it while the X11 server
> > > uses the console.
> What about this question?
Ooops. Nope, no X at all.
> > It's a gigabyte 8knxp MB. I have two Promise PCI cards in it (1
> > ATA-100, 1 ATA-133, IIRC).
> So it's an Intel 875P chipset which rules out PCI bus problems. Your
> performance will however definitely limited by the PCI bus because
> the ATA-133 Promise alone can saturate it.
> > Is it harmful to have an MBR on the RAID volumes, or merely
> > unnecessary?
> Simply unnecessary.
> > Sure thing:
> > wm0 at pci2 dev 1 function 0: Intel i82547EI 1000BASE-T Ethernet, rev. 0
> > wm0: interrupting at ioapic0 pin 18 (irq 5)
> > wm0: Communication Streaming Architecture
> > wm0: using 82547 Tx FIFO stall work-around
> > wm0: 64 word (6 address bits) MicroWire EEPROM
> > wm0: Ethernet address 00:20:ed:71:50:56
> > wm1 at pci3 dev 4 function 0: Intel i82540EM 1000BASE-T Ethernet, rev. 2
> > wm1: interrupting at ioapic0 pin 18 (irq 5)
> > wm1: 32-bit 33MHz PCI bus
> > wm1: 64 word (6 address bits) MicroWire EEPROM
> > wm1: Ethernet address 00:0e:0c:06:a7:80
> Which of these are you using?
Arg. Both. And irq 5 on each. That's not OK. Shoulda noticed that.......
That's why you ask, no?
I'll get that fixed when I'm in front of the box later this evening.