Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-42,: Re: Compaq ProLiant server

# Re: Compaq ProLiant server

Mr. James W. Laferriere (babydr@baby-dragons.com)
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:39:05 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: G. Allen Morris III: "Re: Linux-2.1.126... (patch to kernel/acct.c"
- Previous message: Ralf Wierzbicki: "2.1.126 fails compile #2 (sound module)"
- In reply to: Zow: "Re: Compaq ProLiant server"

Hello All,

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Zow Terry Brugger wrote:
> > > Fair warning: I have not been able to get 2.1.x running on my professional
> > > workstation 5000 with dual processors: it runs fine, but fails POST on
> > > reboot with a processor failure. A few ProLiant owners have reported the
> > > exact same symptoms, so if your machine has multiple processors on it,
> > > you will need to run 2.0 on it. This has worked fine for me except that
> > > the 8xx (SCSI) driver in the 2.0 line is running my SCSI bus at half the
> > > speed it can do with the 2.1 driver, so disk performance kind of hurts.
> > > I'm just hoping that a future 2.0 will have a better driver in it b/c I
> > > don't think I'll be able to do 2.2 .
> >
> > Have you tried the 2.1 8xx driver with 2.0 or am I really pusing it? I
>
> I haven't tried it as I understand that there are some signifigant
> differences in the interface between the two versions. If I'm really
> off base here (as that's just what I've surmised reading the list),
> someone please correct me, and I'll probably give it a swing.

Gentle people I have tried the latest 3.0i with -both-
2.0.35+alan14 & 2.1.125 . This driver has always worked
well for me . Well I see gerard has sent to the list
a patch to get 3.0i(under 2.1.125) to 3.1 .

> > haven't ran a 2.1 kernel in ages, but it sounds like things are shaping up
> > nicely. Maybe I can wait for 2.2. From your message though, it sounds
> > like I can run 2.1, but have to do cold boots anytime I bring the system
> > down. Hopefully that won't be too often!
> >
> Well, that's kind of my thought too, but as the box I'm running is not
> going to have a head, I wanted to avoid any problems that could arise
> in administering it remotely.
>
> > According to the 2.0 kernel docs, the Tlan driver is "experimental". Does
> > anyone have a take on how well it performs and how stable it is?
> >
> It hasn't given me any problems but then I'm not putting much of a load
> on it. I must say though, 100Mb/s is nice: never had a net that did that
> before.
>
> > I know that a lot of work has been done on the SMP code in 2.1- is it
> > worth running over the lastest 2.0.36pre8 in a production enviroment?
> >
> It seems to be judging from everything I've read & seen (parallelization
> is one of my areas of interest), just wish I could run it on my multi-
> processor to really put it through the ringer (runs great on the uni's
> I've put it on).
>
> > Thanks for the info!
> >
> Quite welcome.
>
> > Aaron Turner | Either which way, one half dozen or another.
>
> -"Zow"
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

, JimL
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere - Network Engineer - babydr@baby-dragons.com |
| System Techniques - 25416 - 22nd S. - Des-Moines, WA 98198 |
| Give me VMS -or- Give me Linux -but- only on AXP |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

- Next message: G. Allen Morris III: "Re: Linux-2.1.126... (patch to kernel/acct.c"
- Previous message: Ralf Wierzbicki: "2.1.126 fails compile #2 (sound module)"
- In reply to: Zow: "Re: Compaq ProLiant server"