slackware 9.1 with SATA

jong357 · 07-26-2004, 10:31 AM

That explains a thing or two. I was wondering where it got off to.....

froedi · 07-29-2004, 09:34 AM

hi there!

I've got an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe mainboard with SiI3112 sata chipset and a 120GB seagate sata hd.

I attempted to install slackware 10.0 by using bonecrusher's (thanks for your ernourmous efforts so far :>) customized bootdisk, but [still] the hd isn't recognized correctly -> it's /dev/hde instead of a scsi device

I'm currently downloading bc's ISO - but I guess there's no difference between using the ISO and the bootdisk, om am I wrong?

Actually, I don't have a clue, how to get the sata drive work / be detected correctly :/

But I do have a 2nd PC here, so I am able to compile a custom kernel (if that is neccessary to solve my problem).

Any ideas about what I'm supposed to do?
I'd really appreciate that. :>

bonecrusher · 07-29-2004, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by froedi
hi there!

I've got an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe mainboard with SiI3112 sata chipset and a 120GB seagate sata hd.

I attempted to install slackware 10.0 by using bonecrusher's (thanks for your ernourmous efforts so far :>) customized bootdisk, but [still] the hd isn't recognized correctly -> it's /dev/hde instead of a scsi device

I'm currently downloading bc's ISO - but I guess there's no difference between using the ISO and the bootdisk, om am I wrong?

Actually, I don't have a clue, how to get the sata drive work / be detected correctly :/

But I do have a 2nd PC here, so I am able to compile a custom kernel (if that is neccessary to solve my problem).

Any ideas about what I'm supposed to do?
I'd really appreciate that. :>

Hmm. Strange that is it still coming up like that. Are you sure your BIOS is tuned correctly? (SATA enabled etc etc)?

I have an asus board but mine is an ICH5r but I had to make sure my SATA was enabled before I could do anything with it.
Well check that and let me know if we need to figure it out some other way. (Always looking for the easiest answer first!

)

Also, you are correct. There should not be much difference between the boot disk and the ISO. They both are compiled for 2.4.26 (patched that is for SATA) and basically the same kernel.

Well, Let me know...

bc

froedi · 07-29-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bonecrusher
Hmm. Strange that is it still coming up like that. Are you sure your BIOS is tuned correctly? (SATA enabled etc etc)?

maybe I'm blind or just too tired for this right now but I can't find any BIOS option for enabling / disabling SATA. :/
it's working with windows so I guess the settings are correct.

following idea just came to my mind:
would it make a difference using a custom 2.6.7 kernel with SATA support rather than a 2.4.26 kernel?
I'm just guessing, but maybe there have been some principal changes between 2.6.7 and 2.4.26.

€: even knoppix 3.4 recognizes my hd as hde.

what if I just try to install slack on hde? what's the worst thing that could happen?

McFace · 07-29-2004, 09:14 PM

Hi. I'm trying to install Slackware 10 on my computer, but its not working.

I have 2 80GB SATA HDDs on a RAID-0 array.
I already have Windows XP and Windows XP 64-bit edition installed on my hard drive (on separate partitions).
My SATA/RAID controller is the VIA VT8237 (built into my motherboard).

I tried bonecrusher's sata.i, it seems to sort of detect my drives, but setup still wont detect the linux partition that I made in PartitionMagic.

So, I tried running cfdisk. It sees both my drives, but for the first drive ( /dev/sda) it gives me the error that the Partition ends after end-of-disk and refuses to run. for the second disk, ( /dev/sdb), it lets me run it and detects the correct size, but it doesnt detect any of the partitions that are on it. It just detects it as a blank 80GB HDD.

Any ideas from anyone on this? I'm probably doing something wrong. I'm very new at Linux.

I've already tried installing SuSe 9.1 Personal (based on the 2.6.x kernel) on my computer, and it detects everything fine, but it tells me something along the lines of
"Your RAID controller, while sold as RAID, is actually a software RAID controller. The 2.6.x kernel doesn't support software RAID. You may continue installation, but your disk must be formatted" (I'm assuming I wouldn't have been able to use RAID though.)

I really dont want to format my hard drive.

Thanks for any help.

bonecrusher · 07-30-2004, 01:20 AM

The quick answer would be you probably shouldn't be running raid and installing linux.
This is probably why you are getting flakey results from cfdisk etc.

The two don't cooperate well from what I know. You can try installing software raid lateron (md driver under Linux), but I don't know alot about raid systems as I don't run raid right now. (I have run it in the past on strictly windows server systems at work..) but as far as linux goes raid is a big no-no.
Software raid is possible on linux, but not hardware. You may have to turn raid off in bios to get a proper install for linux. There HAS been work done on hardware/bios/controller raid in linux, but from what I know they are proprietary drivers built for particular chipsets. (try a google search on via raid linux I guess)?

???

Other then that I don't know and I don't want to mislead you. There are others on here that know more about it then me though.

bc

*** EDIT:
See linuxmafia link below for some more info on raid. I forgot about this link (and the info on raid particularly when I posted this the first time.)

froedi · 07-30-2004, 07:23 AM

from http://www.linuxmafia.com/faq/Hardware/sata.html

Quote:

Support is mostly in 2.6 kernels, and in circa-2.4.23 and later kernels. Note that device names will change, if you upgrade kernels from 2.4.x to 2.6.0, e.g., move from /dev/hdg to /dev/sda. So, e.g., append "root=/dev/sda3" to kernel's boot options. (According to a 2004-04-15 post to the Linux kernel mailing list, this addressing change occurs only with the ICH5 and SiI3112 chipsets.)

does that mean my hdd was recognized correctly?

bonecrusher · 07-30-2004, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by froedi
from http://www.linuxmafia.com/faq/Hardware/sata.html

does that mean my hdd was recognized correctly?

I have read the web page you have linked before. (Actually I have a printout of it around here it is such a good source of info!) It states that there is some 'support for 2.4.23' .... and then your quote. I believe they are talking about the vanilla kernel, and they are talking about support for sata that had already been in place. (The chipsets we are referencing in Slackware 2.4.26-2.4.26-rc1-libata3 for (v10) aka ('Bonecrushers SATA ISO') is a newer libata, and completely different). And indeed the patch I put on (2.4.26-rc1-libata3.patch) 2.4.26 was a libata patch not included in vanilla 2.4.26 (hence PATCH

)
Anyway to answer: no I believe you should still see your drive coming up as /dev/sdX. Especially since almost anyone else who gets it to install (like me for instance, and I have an INTEL ICH5 chipset) have it coming up /dev/sda...

I will look more into this, though.

As a side note I have added more SATA links to my web page also (including linuxmafias) and have the changlogs for libata as well. :
4elements (Linux Sata) Webpage

bc

froedi · 08-01-2004, 09:11 AM

from http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...47#post1074847

Quote:

The /dev/hde designation of your SATA device suggests that you are using the siimage driver from the kernel distribution. It is not only buggy but it is also practically abandoned. You should look into using the libata driver instead, but switching can be a bit tricky. First you need to build a kernel without siimage support but with libata Silicon Image driver built-in. [...]

if I wanted to compile the 2.6.7 kernel in order to create my own bootdisk / ISO - what would I have to do to get rid of the siimage driver from the kernel distribution and be able to use the libata driver instead?

bonecrusher · 08-01-2004, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by froedi
from http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...47#post1074847
if I wanted to compile the 2.6.7 kernel in order to create my own bootdisk / ISO - what would I have to do to get rid of the siimage driver from the kernel distribution and be able to use the libata driver instead?

The libata drive is the patch I put in. As I mentioned above. But..

I was looking in the .config (from boot disk/.iso) and here is the relavent code:

Code:

#
# IDE, ATA and ATAPI Block devices
#
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE=y
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_HD_IDE is not set
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_HD is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDISK=y
# CONFIG_IDEDISK_MULTI_MODE is not set
# CONFIG_IDEDISK_STROKE is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECS=m
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECD=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDETAPE=m
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEFLOPPY=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDESCSI=m
# CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_CMD640=y
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_CMD640_ENHANCED is not set
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ISAPNP is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEPCI=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_GENERIC=y
CONFIG_IDEPCI_SHARE_IRQ=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA_PCI=y
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_OFFBOARD is not set
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA_FORCED is not set
CONFIG_IDEDMA_PCI_AUTO=y
# CONFIG_IDEDMA_ONLYDISK is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA=y
# CONFIG_IDEDMA_PCI_WIP is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ADMA100=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_AEC62XX=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ALI15X3=y
# CONFIG_WDC_ALI15X3 is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_AMD74XX=y
# CONFIG_AMD74XX_OVERRIDE is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATIIXP=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_CMD64X=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_TRIFLEX=y
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_CY82C693 is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_CS5530=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_HPT34X=y
# CONFIG_HPT34X_AUTODMA is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_HPT366=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PIIX=y
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_NS87415 is not set
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_OPTI621 is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PDC202XX_OLD=y
# CONFIG_PDC202XX_BURST is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PDC202XX_NEW=y
# CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RZ1000=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SC1200=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SVWKS=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SIIMAGE=y    *************************
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SIS5513=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SLC90E66=y
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_TRM290 is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_VIA82CXXX=y
CONFIG_IDE_CHIPSETS=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_4DRIVES=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ALI14XX=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_DTC2278=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_HT6560B=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PDC4030=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_QD65XX=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UMC8672=y
CONFIG_IDEDMA_AUTO=y
# CONFIG_IDEDMA_IVB is not set
# CONFIG_DMA_NONPCI is not set
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PDC202XX=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID=m
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_PDC=m
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_HPT=m
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_MEDLEY=m
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_SII=m                  (watch this one too?)

see that? That is the only possible thing I can think of that could cause the problem you are seeing (or more specifically, the post you read). But with any other sata system enabling an IDE device (as in piix driver etc) doesn't interfere with it 'discovering' a sata hd. But who knows.. I haven't read this anywhere else, but that doesn't mean that post isn't right. I can give you the config I used if you like and you can compile your own boot disk. Let me know. But it seems to me that others have had siimage come up right before.. but like I said who knows?

bc

bonecrusher · 08-01-2004, 12:22 PM

There is an FTP site linked to my web page above if you would rather ftp the sata ISO then use bittorrent.
Thought somebody might wanna know, especially if your having trouble with bittorrent (though this is still the preferred method...)

bc

jong357 · 08-14-2004, 12:44 PM

Did you notice that ICH5 wasn't included in 2.4.27? Sigh....... Makes no sense that this Intel controller isn't supported... Thats one of the most common ones, atleast with newer pre-fabs (Dell and whatnot).... Wonder what Jeffs reasoning was behind that..... Oh well.... I wonder if there will ever come a day when I don't have to hack on things anymore when it comes to Linux.......

trace1918 · 08-16-2004, 01:46 PM

After long and hard work bonecrusher managed to help me getting my Slack 10 up and running on my via vt 8237 chipset and in runs perfectly.
But now I wish to compile my own kernel using version 2.6.8.1. What should I compile in to make the sata drive work? Do I need to patch it and in that case how?

Thanks again bonecrusher

equilibrium · 09-05-2004, 10:47 AM

i get this kernel panic error while booting anyone got a clue
kernel panic vfs unable to mount root fs

bonecrusher · 09-07-2004, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by equilibrium
i get this kernel panic error while booting anyone got a clue
kernel panic vfs unable to mount root fs

To help you I need more details then that. Are you using a boot or iso I compiled or something else? And does it load anything from root system or does it error out right away? If it does load anything, what? If you are using the CD, it is more then likely a bad burn (the ram root fs (initrd) can't load for some reason and this is usually because it can't be read). But as I said.. more details... and this would more then likely only apply to an install disk.

bc