Very Computer

by **Roland Main** » Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:45:28

Hi!

----

Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

----

Bye,
Roland

by **Scott Howar** » Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:34:19

> Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
> support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

http://groups.google.com
Type in "group:comp.unix.solaris large ide" (or some other words to that
effect) and click on "Search".

(That's twice in 3 days - I wonder how many times I can post that exact
same thing within a week...)

Scott.

by **Casper H.S. Di** » Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:22:19

>Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
>support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

They don't.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

by **Roland Main** » Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:07:43

> >Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
> >support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

> They don't.

;-(

So I have to use Solaris 2.9, right ?

----

Bye,
Roland

--
__ . . __

/O /==\ O\ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
(;O/ \/ \O;) TEL +49 641 99-41370 FAX +49 641 99-41359

by **Michael Lehman** » Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:58:58

Wrong !

This is limited by the controller chip and not the software. Even Solaris 9
would not allow to address the full capacity of the drive.
The physical limit is 137 GB.

Michael

> > >Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
> > >support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

> > They don't.

> ;-(

> So I have to use Solaris 2.9, right ?

> ----

> Bye,
> Roland

> --
> __ . . __

> /O /==\ O\ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
> (;O/ \/ \O;) TEL +49 641 99-41370 FAX +49 641 99-41359

by **ultraspa..** » Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:17:37

>> >Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
>> >support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

>> They don't.

>So I have to use Solaris 2.9, right ?

the Ultra 5 on-board IDE does not support lba48 no matter which
version of Solaris you use.

by **John D Groenve** » Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:31:22

You might try Acard <URL:http://www.acard.com/> and Symbios/LSI Logic
SCSI controller.

John

by **Bruce Adle** » Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:01:43

> >> >Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
> >> >support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

> >> They don't.

Huh??? You're implying that a 180GB driver won't work at all.
AFAIK, that's wrong. I believe the correct answer is that drives larger
than 137GB will work but you won't be able to use the full capacity. I
haven't tested this on a U5/10 but all the drive vendors have bent
over backwards to try to make certain that "functional but reduced
capacity" would be the default behavior. I've no reason to doubt that
they've missed the mark. How much of the capacity an U5/10 loses depends
on which OBP version is running, which Solaris version was used to label
the drive, and which driver patches were installed. The capacity may be
reduced to as small as 8GB or, if you're lucky, to the 28-bit LBA limit of
137GB.

Quote:
> >So I have to use Solaris 2.9, right ?

> the Ultra 5 on-board IDE does not support lba48 no matter which
> version of Solaris you use.

If you have some evidence or proof that there really is some sort
of inherent problem with the U5/10's on-board controller I'd like
to hear exactly what it is. All the information I have indicates
that there's no such problem. Is your conclusion based on some sort
secret chip erratum that National or CMD have never publicly released?

Although it's been nearly a year since you last posted that 48-bit LBA
canard, AFAIK it's still wrong. You didn't correct my response
the last time this came up so I've no reason to doubt that it's just as
bogus now as it was then. I bet a year from now, 2.9 still won't support
48-bit LBAs and you'll still be telling people (that Bruce Adler is a major
* and) the U5/10 controller chip can't support 48-bit LBAs.

As I explained previously, it's the driver (not the controller) that's
deficient:

http://www.veryComputer.com/%24n97.127500%40newsre...

" ... AFAIK, adding 48-bit LBA support to an Ultra 5/10 should
simply require updated device drivers for the OS and boot
PROM (OBP). ... "

If the SPARC driver writers at Sun are having trouble figuring out
the 48-bit updates for the SPARC driver, then they should sneak
a peek at 48-bit LBA changes in the current x86 ata driver.

by **ultraspa..** » Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:23:05

Quote:>Huh??? You're implying that a 180GB driver won't work at all.

i am implying that it will not use the available capacity.

Quote:>If you have some evidence or proof that there really is some sort
>of inherent problem with the U5/10's on-board controller I'd like
>to hear exactly what it is.

my troubles have been with the Sun Blade 100 which is newer than the
u5/u10 and the version of the ali southbridge used in the sb100 is
blacklisted from lba48 even in the Linux ide driver. i have been
told the cmd part used in the u5/u10 has similar problems and you
are claiming otherwise. either way the drivers do not support the
extended addressing and the result for us is the same, we cannot
make full use of large, cheap ide disks.

Quote:>you'll still be telling people (that Bruce Adler is a major
>* and) the U5/10 controller chip can't support 48-bit LBAs.

i do not remember calling Bruce Adler a minor * let alone
a major *.

Quote:>If the SPARC driver writers at Sun are having trouble figuring out
>the 48-bit updates for the SPARC driver, then they should sneak
>a peek at 48-bit LBA changes in the current x86 ata driver.

i wish they would.

by **Casper H.S. Di** » Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:53:11

>AFAIK, that's wrong. I believe the correct answer is that drives larger
>than 137GB will work but you won't be able to use the full capacity. I
>haven't tested this on a U5/10 but all the drive vendors have bent
>over backwards to try to make certain that "functional but reduced
>capacity" would be the default behavior. I've no reason to doubt that
>they've missed the mark. How much of the capacity an U5/10 loses depends
>on which OBP version is running, which Solaris version was used to label
>the drive, and which driver patches were installed. The capacity may be
>reduced to as small as 8GB or, if you're lucky, to the 28-bit LBA limit of
>137GB.

That's what I meant; the question is "when a 40GB drive shows up at 8GB,
does it work"? That's largely philisophical, perhaps.

The hardware is limited to 137GB disks.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

by **Scott Howar** » Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:01:13

>> >> >Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
>> >> >support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

>> >> They don't.

> Huh??? You're implying that a 180GB driver won't work at all.
> AFAIK, that's wrong. I believe the correct answer is that drives larger
[...]
> the drive, and which driver patches were installed. The capacity may be
> reduced to as small as 8GB or, if you're lucky, to the 28-bit LBA limit of

Well I don't know about you, but if I had a 180Gb hard disk showing up
as an 8Gb disk, then I'd consider that the disk in question wasn't supported
by the host...

Scott

by **Bruce Adle** » Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:35:48

> >> >> >Does anyone have any experience whether the Ultra 5/360MHz machines
> >> >> >support 180GB ATA drives under Solaris 2.7 ?

> >> >> They don't.

> > Huh??? You're implying that a 180GB driver won't work at all.
> > AFAIK, that's wrong. I believe the correct answer is that drives larger
> [...]
> > the drive, and which driver patches were installed. The capacity may be
> > reduced to as small as 8GB or, if you're lucky, to the 28-bit LBA limit of

> Well I don't know about you, but if I had a 180Gb hard disk showing up
> as an 8Gb disk, then I'd consider that the disk in question wasn't supported
> by the host...

And I say, it depends on what one is trying to accomplish. Casper gave
an ambiguous answer which most people would interpret wrongly, and I
gave a more complete answer that didn't make any assumptions about the
motives of the questioner.

For example, if someone has an existing system with a dead drive and they
just want to, as quickly as possible, get it repaired and restored back to
the state it was in prior to the drive failure, then given that you can't
get brand new 8GB drives anymore (the smallest available is about 60GB),
and given that the newer larger drives cost less than half what the 8GB
drives cost when they were available, and given that real soon 180GB is
going to be the smallest available drive, I'm certain that some people
would just use the larger drive and not even care about the "lost" space.
In other words, if you can't get the exact same part, it's useful to
know what kinds of substitute parts are usable.

Very Computer

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?

180GB ATA drive supported on Ultra5 with Solaris 2.7 ?