Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ken Moffat
Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 8:08 am

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 03:32:49PM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:

 Initramfs isn't something I've ever tried, so I'm not about to rush
into it on the server.  Maybe I'll try it on a desktop one day.
Anyway, I've now got it running without ide=reverse, details follow
for anybody else who gets a similar problem in the future.

 And for the next person asking this, it seems to be so that you
can specify the root= parameter.


 Turns out I was wrong about having a SATA disk for the system - I
used to, but then I needed to separate the backups into separate r/o
and r/w filesystems when nfs no longer let me export part of a ro fs
as rw.  In the change, my staging area for writing to tape or DVD
moved to the system disk, and the only big-enough disk I could get
locally was parallel ide.  So in that setup, ide on a card comes
first.

 My first thought was to try using libata for the drives on the
add-on card (sii0680), although it's marked as experimental.  Maybe
I picked the wrong driver, but they didn't show up.  Reverted to
previous config.

 Changed to mount-by-label so that I don't have to change fstab for
the old and new kernels.

 Moved the main drive and the CD to libata (sii still old IDE) -
specify sda instead of hda in root=, change system scripts referencing
drives by name (for SMART - system disk is again -d ata, the data raid
moved from hd{e,g} to hd{a,c}), now seems to be working but I expect
I'll notice a few things more in my scripts over the next days.

 I also discovered that lilo needed the real node specified in root=
to exist.  It complained, so I added a symlink to the hdaX node -
panic'd trying to load rootfs from 0307.  Reboot to old kernel, run mknod on /dev,
repeat, booted.

Ken
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
"ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Greg KH, (Tue Feb 12, 5:15 pm)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Rene Herman, (Tue Feb 12, 6:41 pm)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Ken Moffat, (Tue Feb 12, 7:43 pm)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Muli Ben-Yehuda, (Wed Feb 13, 2:32 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Rene Herman, (Wed Feb 13, 5:06 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Michael Ellerman, (Wed Feb 13, 5:16 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Wed Feb 13, 5:34 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Rene Herman, (Wed Feb 13, 5:46 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Rene Herman, (Wed Feb 13, 5:57 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Ken Moffat, (Wed Feb 13, 8:32 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Muli Ben-Yehuda, (Wed Feb 13, 10:47 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Wed Feb 13, 3:20 pm)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Michael Ellerman, (Wed Feb 13, 3:39 pm)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Wed Feb 13, 5:02 pm)
Re: [discuss] pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary n ..., Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Thu Feb 14, 5:11 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Sergei Shtylyov, (Thu Feb 14, 6:09 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Bill Davidsen, (Thu Feb 14, 10:16 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Muli Ben-Yehuda, (Fri Feb 15, 12:48 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Feb 15, 6:58 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Muli Ben-Yehuda, (Sun Feb 17, 12:53 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Ken Moffat, (Tue Feb 19, 8:08 am)