Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Problems with Promise IDE controller under 2.4.1 | From | Rupa Schomaker <> | Date | 31 Jan 2001 22:05:08 -0800 |
| |
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/
| |