Ultra 160 - what HA works well with 2.4 and 2.6?

Ultra 160 - what HA works well with 2.4 and 2.6?

[Matthias Andree]

Hi,

I have marc'ed (as in googled or marc.theaimsgroup.com) this list a bit
to figure recommendations for SCSI host adaptors. Leaving Adaptec aside
(unaffordable), it appears as though qlogic 12160 and LSI 53C1010 based
adaptors were well supported and had maintained drivers, in 2.4 as in
2.6, with two drivers to choose from for qlogic.

The board is supposed to be used in software RAID1. (AMD XP1700+ w/ VIA
KT333).

Are there concerns that I should be aware of, for instance Dave Jones'
post-halloween-2003 doc (http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/post-halloween-2.5.txt)
mentions error handling, are there non-obvious concerns affecting the
qla1280 and sym53c8xx_2 drivers? Which works better? Anything else I
should consider?

Does it make a difference which brand the card will be? I have good
experience with the 53C875 based Tekram cards so far, but U160 is a
different League than UWSCSI.

Thanks in advance,

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95

Re: Ultra 160 - what HA works well with 2.4 and 2.6?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:39:29AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Are there concerns that I should be aware of, for instance Dave Jones'
> post-halloween-2003 doc (http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/post-halloween-2.5.txt)
> mentions error handling, are there non-obvious concerns affecting the
> qla1280 and sym53c8xx_2 drivers? Which works better? Anything else I
> should consider?

I'd say both are fine, look for the price :) for the qlogic one make sure
you're using the recent driver from Jes as included in 2.6 or 2.4.23pre,
not the one from qlogic.

> Does it make a difference which brand the card will be? I have good
> experience with the 53C875 based Tekram cards so far, but U160 is a
> different League than UWSCSI.

I don't think the vendor matters that much these days, there's not a lot
to wire left on the boards and the driver is the same anyway.