[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.8 sees hard drive; 3.0 doesn't
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Ben Goren wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:46:22PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> > > On one of them, none of the 3.0 install floppies recognize the
> > > hard drive. On the other, all is fine. I've tried all three
> > > images on the CD, plus the floppy30.fs from the latest
> > > snapshot and a ``make release'' of -stable done on the 28th;
> > > if there's a different result among the five disks, I can't
> > > see it.
> > >
> > > Suggestions most welcome; dmesges below.
> > I love dmesg's, thanks! 8-)
> Have you seen any professionals about this?
> > [. . .] The one that is not working is running an old ST3290A
> > (that would be a 250M IDE drive), which is not a DMA drive (no,
> > I don't have this memorized...
> > Interestingly, I don't think I've ever tried to put a very old
> > drive on a not-so-old computer, so I'm not sure how wide-spread
> > this problem would be...
> See below; I might be able to donate the drive to science if it'd
> be worth fixing.
> > If you want to prove me wrong (or right), swap the drives
> > between the machines, the problem should follow the drive, not
> > the machine.
> I was afraid you'd suggest that--I'm trying to minimize downtime.
> I was able to scrounge another drive, a 2 1/2 Gbyte ST32532A. The
> installer sees it, so my immediate problem is solved. Heck, it's
> big enough for an /altroot and then some!
> So, I haven't confirmed that the old drive has problems in the
> other computer, but I have confirmed that a different, newer drive
> has no problem. Good enough diagnostics?
> > I'm guessing if you were to disable the pciide driver (which
> > forces the system to use the older non-DMA driver), it will
> > recognize the ST3290A drive. This can be done by doing this: [.
> > . .]
> I think it half-worked. It found a wdc0 but never a wd0.
> > Yeah, disabling DMA support hurts performance, but shouldn't
> > have much [. . . .]
> Frankly, if floppies weren't so amazingly unreliable (I've had two
> brand new ones go bad just in this experimenting, and I've only
> needed two total (one for the boot floppy and one for the
> sneakernet)) then I'd be booting from a floppy. Or a CD if the
> BIOS supported that. Why does OpenBSD have to work so well on old
> equipment? Lack of cash aside, I have no excuse to upgrade.
> Anyway, assuming all goes well with the upgrade, I'll have the old
> drive left over. Would anybody want it to see if it could be made
> to work? If not, it'll just go in the Frankenbin.
> > Nick.
> Thanks much,
> P.S. In light of a recent post of yours (Nick), will I have
> trouble with only 16 Mbytes RAM? They'll be firewalls, of course;
> one a bridge, the other with IPs but no NAT. Nothing but pf, only
> minimal logging. b&
My Compaq will _run_ GENERIC just fine with 16 megs. It is just the
installer that hangs. It is currently doing a make build of -current, and
acting as a firewall on my cable modem setup, natting one Mac.
Throughput to the Mac from the internet is not impeded.
> > P.P.S. The problem drive came from a Compaq 486 that I installed
> my very first firewall on, using a brand-new CD of Red Hat
> 4.1. Oh, the memories.... b&
> Ben Goren
> [demime 0.98d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Open Vistas Networking, Inc.