FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-06-2008, 05:51 PM
Michael Rock
 
Default Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

Last year to get motherboards with the G33 chipset with SATA working with Centos I had to either use David Harbic fixes or use Fedora 8 since it had the later 2.6.25 kernel.

I no longer see David's fixes available and also see in the 5.2 release notes "update SATA driver and infrastructure". Did Redhat finally incorporate fixes to full support the new G33 chipset and SATA?

I have more of these G33 chipset motherboards with Q6600 cpu. Trying to decide which is the least hassle setup and long term i386 or x86_64, on either Centos 5.2 or Fedora 9?










_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-07-2008, 11:01 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Michael Rock wrote:

Last year to get motherboards with the G33 chipset with SATA working
with Centos I had to either use David Harbic fixes or use Fedora 8 since
it had the later 2.6.25 kernel.


I no longer see David's fixes available and also see in the 5.2 release
notes "update SATA driver and infrastructure". Did Redhat finally
incorporate fixes to full support the new G33 chipset and SATA?


I have more of these G33 chipset motherboards with Q6600 cpu. Trying
to decide which is the least hassle setup and long term i386 or x86_64,
on either Centos 5.2 or Fedora 9?


First of all, if this is important to you, please remember to buy hardware
based on your OS requirements (and not buy what looks interesting to find
out you end up having issues driving it). Especially if you buy more than
one piece...


Secondly, Fedora 9 is neither a least hassle setup, not a long term
solution. Since you may have to upgrade every 6 to 12 months, which is
something you may think does not matter that much, until you are forced to
upgrade on a timetable that is not yours.


Thirdly, the best way to find out if your hardware is supported is to do
an actual installation on that hardware. Since you have more than one
piece, why not boot it and see if it is fixed ? And then report back :-)


Kind regards,
--
-- dag wieers, dag@centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-07-2008, 12:35 PM
Michael Rock
 
Default Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Dag Wieers <dag@centos.org> wrote:

> From: Dag Wieers <dag@centos.org>
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?
> To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos@centos.org>
> Date: Monday, July 7, 2008, 7:01 AM
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Michael Rock wrote:
>
> > Last year to get motherboards with the G33 chipset
> with SATA working
> > with Centos I had to either use David Harbic fixes or
> use Fedora 8 since
> > it had the later 2.6.25 kernel.
> >
> > I no longer see David's fixes available and also
> see in the 5.2 release
> > notes "update SATA driver and
> infrastructure". Did Redhat finally
> > incorporate fixes to full support the new G33 chipset
> and SATA?
> >
> > I have more of these G33 chipset motherboards with
> Q6600 cpu. Trying
> > to decide which is the least hassle setup and long
> term i386 or x86_64,
> > on either Centos 5.2 or Fedora 9?
>
> First of all, if this is important to you, please remember
> to buy hardware
> based on your OS requirements (and not buy what looks
> interesting to find
> out you end up having issues driving it). Especially if you
> buy more than
> one piece...
>

Actually I did. I checked linuxtested.com before purchase and it showed this model tested ok with Redhat except for audio which I could care less about. Also, given that the chipset has been out over a year now, it works with Fedora, and you have people like David providing fixes you would figure by now RHEL 5.2 would have caught up.

> Secondly, Fedora 9 is neither a least hassle setup, not a
> long term
> solution. Since you may have to upgrade every 6 to 12
> months, which is
> something you may think does not matter that much, until
> you are forced to
> upgrade on a timetable that is not yours.
>

Most of my boxes run Centos and I prefer Centos for that very reason over the hassle of constant upgrades. I also went with Fedora 8 which was a smooth install but plan to move it back to Centos/RHEL when they catch up with the kernel updates. The kernel numbering can be a bit confusing to me since they backport fixes. At kernel.org the Sata problems were not fixed until a later release and not in 2.6.18

> Thirdly, the best way to find out if your hardware is
> supported is to do
> an actual installation on that hardware. Since you have
> more than one
> piece, why not boot it and see if it is fixed ? And then
> report back :-)
>

I agree but been there before and wanted to see if anyone else knew about the backported fixes in case it looks like it is working but in reality there were unforseen problems that were not backported. Is there another place that details RH kernel fixes other than Errata since I could not find the fixes detailed at kernel.org?

thanks




_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-07-2008, 02:31 PM
Kai Schaetzl
 
Default Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

Michael Rock wrote on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:35:38 -0700 (PDT):

> it showed
> this model tested ok with Redhat

"Redhat" is not a distribution, what exactly got it tested with?

Kai

--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-07-2008, 03:29 PM
Michael Rock
 
Default Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

To be specific it listed it as "RedHat 5.0 Client".
http://www.linuxtested.com/results/asus_p5k-vm.html

Looks like no one tested Fedora. I probably should email them since I can confirm it works with FC8, but no audio.

--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Kai Schaetzl <maillists@conactive.com> wrote:

> From: Kai Schaetzl <maillists@conactive.com>
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?
> To: centos@centos.org
> Date: Monday, July 7, 2008, 10:31 AM
> Michael Rock wrote on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:35:38 -0700 (PDT):
>
> > it showed
> > this model tested ok with Redhat
>
> "Redhat" is not a distribution, what exactly got
> it tested with?
>
> Kai
>
> --
> Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
> Get your web at Conactive Internet Services:
> http://www.conactive.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-08-2008, 03:03 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default Centos 5.2 and 2.6.18-92 Kernel backported SATA fixes?

Michael Rock wrote:

To be specific it listed it as "RedHat 5.0 Client".
http://www.linuxtested.com/results/asus_p5k-vm.html



They did not test sata though

Hard Drive Seagate ST320410A 20G (IDE)


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:59 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org