Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1

[Rupa Schomaker <rupa-list+linux-kernel@rupa.com>]

Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:

> On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
> 
> > Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > > > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > > > I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
> > > 
> > > We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.
> > 
> > In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> > different geometry.  How could that be?  Move the "virgin" drive to
> > the motherboard IDE controller and suddenly the geometry is the same.
> > Use fdisk and partition the disk, write it, and then move to the
> > promise controller and the "correct" geometry was used (that is, it is
> > now the same as when hooked up to the motherboard ide controller).
> > 
> > Why was it important to me?  I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to
> > have the same geometry so that the partition info is the same between
> > the two drives.   Makes life easier.
> 
> Please read the above and pass the geometry to the kernel.
> Mother boards have to do a translation to use the drive completely.

Andre,

But now it doesn't matter.  The drive was tainted (fdisk run while
attached to the mainboard controller) and now that geometry is
"stuck".  <shrug>  I was mostly explaining why it is nice to get the
same geometry on two identical drives (RAID1 is easier for the human
to deal with).

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