From: n217cg@tamuts.tamu.edu (Scott Taylor) Subject: Re: scsi/inode bit Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:07:11 GMT
In article <1992Sep29.054401.9360@bradley.bradley.edu> guru@camelot.bradley.edu (Jerry Whelan) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.041711.1193@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes:
>-} In <BvBD20.5qA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mopar@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mopar Mike) writes:
>
> ...description of serious problem deleted...
>
>-} I have two SCSI disks off an Adaptec 1542, so I guess it's not the
>-} low-level drivers... I sure wish version 2 of the SCSI drivers would
>-} get here soon as I'm getting fed up with the constant partition-
>-} trashing. My system:
>
> Me too!. I just posted about this under something like
>``Funky adaptec scsi'' or something close to that. I've got two drives
>on an Adaptec 1540. All I can say is HELP! Because I can't do a
>thing with linux until I can get my drives to work right. Somebody,
>please help us poor souls...
>
Well, I can't provide much help, but I just wanted to say that at least the
UltraStor support in 0.96c pl2 works like a charm. I am using the most recent
SCSI patches from headrest.woz.colorado.edu (from around the middle of July or
so, I think), and my UltraStor 14F with Maxtor LXT213SY setup has been very
robust, even under heavy loads. As I understand, this is the same SCSI driver
code that is in 0.97, so I wonder what could have happened to break it.
Anyway, I guess that downgrading to 0.96c is kind of regressive, but it may
be a way for anyone that's having problems to get a working linux system; the
reason that I chose to stay at 0.96c was because of various problems reported
with earlier patch levels of 0.97. I have a linux system that is working
perfectly and I didn't want to risk "messing it up." I imagine that I will
have to upgrade when version 2 of the SCSI drivers is released; the current
drivers are a little slow for my taste (but like I said, they work great
otherwise).
Scott Taylor
n217cg@tamuts.tamu.edu