Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-discuss
|
From: Jasper S. <ja...@si...> - 2007-09-02 21:26:01
|
Hi everybody, I'm new to Devil Linux; I checkout and compiled a fresh 1.2 release. The only thing I modified was adding the new MPT fusion drivers, otherwise none of the SAS controllers in HP Proliants work. After that I installed devil linux on a USB stick and booted it. It works like a charm, except for iptables. When I try a simple NAT command like: 'iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j MASQUERADE' I get the dreaded 'iptables: Invalid argument' error. Which suggests the module is out of sync with the userland utils. However, since I compiled the whole thing from scrath, I dont see how this is possible. The iptable_nat module is loaded and other iptable rules work, for as far as I can tell its only the NAT table that misbehaves. Can anybody confirm this behavior ? Or am I just royally screwing up ? :-) Kind regards, Jasper |
|
From: Stefan E. <ste...@av...> - 2007-09-02 21:54:04
|
Hi, the problem is located in the pptp-conntrack-nat support code. Somewhere on the mailing list are some other mails regarding this problem. Until a new version of this patch can be found it is going to break nat support. If you don't need pptp-conntrack-nat support then go to built/scripts/config and edit the file patch-o-matic.exclude. Locate a line with #extra/pptp-conntrack-nat in it and remove the leading '#' to tell the patch-o-matic build script to ignore pptp-conntrack-nat support during build. At least this fixed the nat support for me ;-) Regards, Stefan Jasper Siepkes wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I'm new to Devil Linux; I checkout and compiled a fresh 1.2 release. The > only thing I modified was adding the new MPT fusion drivers, otherwise > none of the SAS controllers in HP Proliants work. > > After that I installed devil linux on a USB stick and booted it. It > works like a charm, except for iptables. When I try a simple NAT command > like: 'iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j > MASQUERADE' I get the dreaded 'iptables: Invalid argument' error. Which > suggests the module is out of sync with the userland utils. However, > since I compiled the whole thing from scrath, I dont see how this is > possible. > > The iptable_nat module is loaded and other iptable rules work, for as > far as I can tell its only the NAT table that misbehaves. > > Can anybody confirm this behavior ? Or am I just royally screwing > up ? :-) > > Kind regards, > > Jasper |
|
From: Jasper S. <ja...@si...> - 2007-09-02 22:04:16
|
I will try it first thing tomorrow morning, sleeping time for now :-) Thanks for the info! Kind regards, Jasper -----Original Message----- From: dev...@li... [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of Stefan Engel Sent: zondag 2 september 2007 23:54 To: dev...@li... Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? Hi, the problem is located in the pptp-conntrack-nat support code. Somewhere on the mailing list are some other mails regarding this problem. Until a new version of this patch can be found it is going to break nat support. If you don't need pptp-conntrack-nat support then go to built/scripts/config and edit the file patch-o-matic.exclude. Locate a line with #extra/pptp-conntrack-nat in it and remove the leading '#' to tell the patch-o-matic build script to ignore pptp-conntrack-nat support during build. At least this fixed the nat support for me ;-) Regards, Stefan Jasper Siepkes wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I'm new to Devil Linux; I checkout and compiled a fresh 1.2 release. The > only thing I modified was adding the new MPT fusion drivers, otherwise > none of the SAS controllers in HP Proliants work. > > After that I installed devil linux on a USB stick and booted it. It > works like a charm, except for iptables. When I try a simple NAT command > like: 'iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j > MASQUERADE' I get the dreaded 'iptables: Invalid argument' error. Which > suggests the module is out of sync with the userland utils. However, > since I compiled the whole thing from scrath, I dont see how this is > possible. > > The iptable_nat module is loaded and other iptable rules work, for as > far as I can tell its only the NAT table that misbehaves. > > Can anybody confirm this behavior ? Or am I just royally screwing > up ? :-) > > Kind regards, > > Jasper ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Devil-linux-discuss mailing list Dev...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2007-09-03 13:30:27
|
Hey guys, I got the feeling that we won't get a newer release of the pptp-conntrack patch for kernel 2.4. Should we just remove it? Or does anyone here have the skill to fix the old pptp-conntrack patch? Heiko On Sun, September 2, 2007 16:53, Stefan Engel wrote: > Hi, > > > the problem is located in the pptp-conntrack-nat support code. Somewhere > on the mailing list are some other mails regarding this problem. Until a > new version of this patch can be found it is going to break nat support. > > If you don't need pptp-conntrack-nat support then go to > built/scripts/config and edit the file patch-o-matic.exclude. Locate a line > with > > #extra/pptp-conntrack-nat > > > in it and remove the leading '#' to tell the patch-o-matic build script to > ignore pptp-conntrack-nat support during build. > > At least this fixed the nat support for me ;-) > > > Regards, > Stefan > > > Jasper Siepkes wrote: > >> Hi everybody, >> >> >> I'm new to Devil Linux; I checkout and compiled a fresh 1.2 release. >> The >> only thing I modified was adding the new MPT fusion drivers, otherwise >> none of the SAS controllers in HP Proliants work. >> >> After that I installed devil linux on a USB stick and booted it. It >> works like a charm, except for iptables. When I try a simple NAT command >> like: 'iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j >> MASQUERADE' I get the dreaded 'iptables: Invalid argument' error. Which >> suggests the module is out of sync with the userland utils. However, >> since I compiled the whole thing from scrath, I dont see how this is >> possible. >> >> The iptable_nat module is loaded and other iptable rules work, for as >> far as I can tell its only the NAT table that misbehaves. >> >> Can anybody confirm this behavior ? Or am I just royally screwing >> up ? :-) >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Jasper >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > > -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Martin H. <ma...@ho...> - 2007-09-03 13:47:42
|
I'd put the energy in a DL w/Kernel 2.6 ... but this is only me. martin > -----Original Message----- > From: dev...@li... [mailto:devil- > lin...@li...] On Behalf Of Heiko Zuerker > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:56 PM > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? >=20 > Hey guys, >=20 > I got the feeling that we won't get a newer release of the pptp-conntrack > patch for kernel 2.4. >=20 > Should we just remove it? > Or does anyone here have the skill to fix the old pptp-conntrack patch? >=20 > Heiko >=20 > On Sun, September 2, 2007 16:53, Stefan Engel wrote: > > (...) |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2007-09-03 13:51:47
|
On Mon, September 3, 2007 08:46, Martin Hotze wrote: > I'd put the energy in a DL w/Kernel 2.6 ... but this is only me. Quite a few people are currently working on it (DL 1.3 that is), including me. I'm sure things will be progressing faster once summer is over and people get bored. ;-) I will like to release a new 1.2 version in the next couple of weeks but we need to make a decision on this issue first. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Jasper S. <ja...@si...> - 2007-09-03 20:03:49
|
Hmmmm... Well I'm going to use DL as a firewall/gateway (shorewall, *Swan, Squid, etc.). And IMHO 2.6 is more volatile then 2.4. Take this for example: http://www.debian.org/security/2007/dsa-1356 . Don't get me wrong; I use 2.6 for plenty of production servers. But for the hub of my network I prefer 2.4. I want something rocksolid and I don't need any of the new features in 2.6. So I ask myself (and you guys :-) ) what is the gain for me ? Of course I could be terribly ignorant :) So please share any opinions you guys have on this subject. Kind regards, Jasper -----Original Message----- From: dev...@li... [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of Heiko Zuerker Sent: maandag 3 september 2007 15:52 To: dev...@li... Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? On Mon, September 3, 2007 08:46, Martin Hotze wrote: > I'd put the energy in a DL w/Kernel 2.6 ... but this is only me. Quite a few people are currently working on it (DL 1.3 that is), including me. I'm sure things will be progressing faster once summer is over and people get bored. ;-) I will like to release a new 1.2 version in the next couple of weeks but we need to make a decision on this issue first. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Devil-linux-discuss mailing list Dev...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2007-09-03 20:42:43
|
On Mon, September 3, 2007 15:04, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > Hmmmm... > > > Well I'm going to use DL as a firewall/gateway (shorewall, *Swan, Squid, > etc.). And IMHO 2.6 is more volatile then 2.4. Take this for example: > http://www.debian.org/security/2007/dsa-1356 . Don't get me wrong; I use > 2.6 > for plenty of production servers. But for the hub of my network I prefer > 2.4. I want something rocksolid and I don't need any of the new features > in 2.6. So I ask myself (and you guys :-) ) what is the gain for me ? > > > Of course I could be terribly ignorant :) So please share any opinions > you guys have on this subject. I fully agree with you. Our main problem which is coming up more and more is hardware compatibility. The 2.4 Kernel is rock solid, but the drivers are getting a little outdated. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a while until we have DL 1.3 where we want it, so 1.2 will be around for a little bit. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Jasper S. <ja...@si...> - 2007-09-03 22:26:04
|
The drivers in the kernel tarball itself are indeed not that update to date. However, most major hardware vendors still provide 2.4 driver support. My case with an LSI SAS Controller (MPT drivers) is a good example of this; They even have 2.2 driver support ! :-). I can confirm that everything works really well on a brand new HP Proliant DL140 G4. It makes an excellent (and cheap) gateway device. Is it possible for me to submit a patch with the updated MPT drivers for DL, or do you guys rather keep the kernel as Vanilla as possible ? It would certainly come in handy for everyone who wants to install DL on a HP Proliant, all SATA models use LSI controllers. -----Original Message----- From: dev...@li... [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of Heiko Zuerker Sent: maandag 3 september 2007 22:43 To: dev...@li... Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? On Mon, September 3, 2007 15:04, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > Hmmmm... > > > Well I'm going to use DL as a firewall/gateway (shorewall, *Swan, Squid, > etc.). And IMHO 2.6 is more volatile then 2.4. Take this for example: > http://www.debian.org/security/2007/dsa-1356 . Don't get me wrong; I use > 2.6 > for plenty of production servers. But for the hub of my network I prefer > 2.4. I want something rocksolid and I don't need any of the new features > in 2.6. So I ask myself (and you guys :-) ) what is the gain for me ? > > > Of course I could be terribly ignorant :) So please share any opinions > you guys have on this subject. I fully agree with you. Our main problem which is coming up more and more is hardware compatibility. The 2.4 Kernel is rock solid, but the drivers are getting a little outdated. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a while until we have DL 1.3 where we want it, so 1.2 will be around for a little bit. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Devil-linux-discuss mailing list Dev...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2007-09-03 22:37:04
|
Send in the patch. Heiko On Mon, September 3, 2007 17:26, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > The drivers in the kernel tarball itself are indeed not that update to > date. However, most major hardware vendors still provide 2.4 driver > support. > > My case with an LSI SAS Controller (MPT drivers) is a good example of > this; They even have 2.2 driver support ! :-). I can confirm that > everything works really well on a brand new HP Proliant DL140 G4. It makes > an excellent (and cheap) gateway device. > > Is it possible for me to submit a patch with the updated MPT drivers for > DL, > or do you guys rather keep the kernel as Vanilla as possible ? It would > certainly come in handy for everyone who wants to install DL on a HP > Proliant, all SATA models use LSI controllers. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dev...@li... > [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of > Heiko Zuerker > Sent: maandag 3 september 2007 22:43 > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? > > > > On Mon, September 3, 2007 15:04, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > >> Hmmmm... >> >> >> >> Well I'm going to use DL as a firewall/gateway (shorewall, *Swan, >> Squid, >> etc.). And IMHO 2.6 is more volatile then 2.4. Take this for example: >> http://www.debian.org/security/2007/dsa-1356 . Don't get me wrong; I >> use 2.6 >> for plenty of production servers. But for the hub of my network I prefer >> 2.4. I want something rocksolid and I don't need any of the new >> features in 2.6. So I ask myself (and you guys :-) ) what is the gain >> for me ? >> >> >> Of course I could be terribly ignorant :) So please share any opinions >> you guys have on this subject. > > I fully agree with you. > Our main problem which is coming up more and more is hardware > compatibility. The 2.4 Kernel is rock solid, but the drivers are getting a > little outdated. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a while until we have DL > 1.3 where we want > it, so 1.2 will be around for a little bit. > > -- > > > Regards > Heiko Zuerker > http://www.devil-linux.org > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > > -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Jasper S. <ja...@si...> - 2007-09-04 21:49:07
Attachments:
mptpatch.diff
|
Well Patch is perhaps a big word :-) Since I'm still a real noob with the DL buildsystem, I don't know if I implemented the 'patch' correctly. I say 'patch' because it's not really a patch, it just extracts the source tar ball in the correct location like the docs state: http://www.lsi.com/support/downloads/mptlinux.txt I've got the tarball with drivers' source here: http://www.siepkes.nl/jfire/mptlinux-2.06.65.00-src.tar.gz You can also pull the drivers from here: http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/sas_hbas/lsi sas3801x/index.html?remote=1&locale=EN . That provides a tarball with the source, RPM, SRPM, etc. Let me know if I need to change something about it. Kind regards, Jasper -----Original Message----- From: dev...@li... [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of Heiko Zuerker Sent: dinsdag 4 september 2007 0:37 To: dev...@li... Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? Send in the patch. Heiko On Mon, September 3, 2007 17:26, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > The drivers in the kernel tarball itself are indeed not that update to > date. However, most major hardware vendors still provide 2.4 driver > support. > > My case with an LSI SAS Controller (MPT drivers) is a good example of > this; They even have 2.2 driver support ! :-). I can confirm that > everything works really well on a brand new HP Proliant DL140 G4. It makes > an excellent (and cheap) gateway device. > > Is it possible for me to submit a patch with the updated MPT drivers for > DL, > or do you guys rather keep the kernel as Vanilla as possible ? It would > certainly come in handy for everyone who wants to install DL on a HP > Proliant, all SATA models use LSI controllers. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dev...@li... > [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of > Heiko Zuerker > Sent: maandag 3 september 2007 22:43 > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? > > > > On Mon, September 3, 2007 15:04, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > >> Hmmmm... >> >> >> >> Well I'm going to use DL as a firewall/gateway (shorewall, *Swan, >> Squid, >> etc.). And IMHO 2.6 is more volatile then 2.4. Take this for example: >> http://www.debian.org/security/2007/dsa-1356 . Don't get me wrong; I >> use 2.6 >> for plenty of production servers. But for the hub of my network I prefer >> 2.4. I want something rocksolid and I don't need any of the new >> features in 2.6. So I ask myself (and you guys :-) ) what is the gain >> for me ? >> >> >> Of course I could be terribly ignorant :) So please share any opinions >> you guys have on this subject. > > I fully agree with you. > Our main problem which is coming up more and more is hardware > compatibility. The 2.4 Kernel is rock solid, but the drivers are getting a > little outdated. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a while until we have DL > 1.3 where we want > it, so 1.2 will be around for a little bit. > > -- > > > Regards > Heiko Zuerker > http://www.devil-linux.org > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > > -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Devil-linux-discuss mailing list Dev...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2007-09-09 14:02:50
|
Hi, the thing we need in order to add it to the standard DL, are the scripts which integrate into the DL build system (build/mptlinux build/configuration/mptlinux etc.). Here's a description on sending in a patch. http://www.devil-linux.org/documentation/1.2.x/ch03s03.html Heiko On Tue, September 4, 2007 16:49, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > Well Patch is perhaps a big word :-) > > > Since I'm still a real noob with the DL buildsystem, I don't know if I > implemented the 'patch' correctly. I say 'patch' because it's not really a > patch, it just extracts the source tar ball in the correct location like > the docs state: http://www.lsi.com/support/downloads/mptlinux.txt > > I've got the tarball with drivers' source here: > http://www.siepkes.nl/jfire/mptlinux-2.06.65.00-src.tar.gz > > > You can also pull the drivers from here: > http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/sas_hbas/l > si sas3801x/index.html?remote=1&locale=EN . That provides a tarball with > the source, RPM, SRPM, etc. > > Let me know if I need to change something about it. > > > Kind regards, > > > Jasper > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dev...@li... > [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of > Heiko Zuerker > Sent: dinsdag 4 september 2007 0:37 > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? > > > Send in the patch. > > > Heiko > > > On Mon, September 3, 2007 17:26, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > >> The drivers in the kernel tarball itself are indeed not that update to >> date. However, most major hardware vendors still provide 2.4 driver >> support. >> >> My case with an LSI SAS Controller (MPT drivers) is a good example of >> this; They even have 2.2 driver support ! :-). I can confirm that >> everything works really well on a brand new HP Proliant DL140 G4. It >> makes an excellent (and cheap) gateway device. >> >> Is it possible for me to submit a patch with the updated MPT drivers >> for DL, >> or do you guys rather keep the kernel as Vanilla as possible ? It would >> certainly come in handy for everyone who wants to install DL on a HP >> Proliant, all SATA models use LSI controllers. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev...@li... >> [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of >> Heiko Zuerker >> Sent: maandag 3 september 2007 22:43 >> To: dev...@li... >> Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 >> ? >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, September 3, 2007 15:04, Jasper Siepkes wrote: >> >> >>> Hmmmm... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Well I'm going to use DL as a firewall/gateway (shorewall, *Swan, >>> Squid, >>> etc.). And IMHO 2.6 is more volatile then 2.4. Take this for example: >>> http://www.debian.org/security/2007/dsa-1356 . Don't get me wrong; I >>> use 2.6 for plenty of production servers. But for the hub of my network >>> I prefer >>> 2.4. I want something rocksolid and I don't need any of the new >>> features in 2.6. So I ask myself (and you guys :-) ) what is the gain >>> for me ? >>> >>> >>> Of course I could be terribly ignorant :) So please share any >>> opinions you guys have on this subject. >> >> I fully agree with you. >> Our main problem which is coming up more and more is hardware >> compatibility. The 2.4 Kernel is rock solid, but the drivers are getting >> a little outdated. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a while until we have DL >> 1.3 where we want >> it, so 1.2 will be around for a little bit. >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Regards >> Heiko Zuerker >> http://www.devil-linux.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list >> Dev...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list >> Dev...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss >> >> >> > > > -- > > > Regards > Heiko Zuerker > http://www.devil-linux.org > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> > http://get.splunk.com/_______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > > -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Jasper S. <ja...@si...> - 2007-09-16 15:10:26
|
Sorry for the late reponse, was on a short holiday for a week (first one this year ;-). I'll check it out and send the patch. Kind regards, Jasper -----Original Message----- From: dev...@li... [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of Heiko Zuerker Sent: zondag 9 september 2007 16:03 To: dev...@li... Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? Hi, the thing we need in order to add it to the standard DL, are the scripts which integrate into the DL build system (build/mptlinux build/configuration/mptlinux etc.). Here's a description on sending in a patch. http://www.devil-linux.org/documentation/1.2.x/ch03s03.html Heiko On Tue, September 4, 2007 16:49, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > Well Patch is perhaps a big word :-) > > > Since I'm still a real noob with the DL buildsystem, I don't know if I > implemented the 'patch' correctly. I say 'patch' because it's not really a > patch, it just extracts the source tar ball in the correct location like > the docs state: http://www.lsi.com/support/downloads/mptlinux.txt > > I've got the tarball with drivers' source here: > http://www.siepkes.nl/jfire/mptlinux-2.06.65.00-src.tar.gz > > > You can also pull the drivers from here: > http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/sas_hbas/l > si sas3801x/index.html?remote=1&locale=EN . That provides a tarball with > the source, RPM, SRPM, etc. > > Let me know if I need to change something about it. > > > Kind regards, > > > Jasper > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dev...@li... > [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of > Heiko Zuerker > Sent: dinsdag 4 september 2007 0:37 > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? > > > Send in the patch. > > > Heiko > > > On Mon, September 3, 2007 17:26, Jasper Siepkes wrote: > >> The drivers in the kernel tarball itself are indeed not that update to >> date. However, most major hardware vendors still provide 2.4 driver >> support. >> >> My case with an LSI SAS Controller (MPT drivers) is a good example of >> this; They even have 2.2 driver support ! :-). I can confirm that >> everything works really well on a brand new HP Proliant DL140 G4. It >> makes an excellent (and cheap) gateway device. >> >> Is it possible for me to submit a patch with the updated MPT drivers >> for DL, >> or do you guys rather keep the kernel as Vanilla as possible ? It would >> certainly come in handy for everyone who wants to install DL on a HP >> Proliant, all SATA models use LSI controllers. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev...@li... >> [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of >> Heiko Zuerker >> Sent: maandag 3 september 2007 22:43 >> To: dev...@li... >> Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 >> ? >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, September 3, 2007 15:04, Jasper Siepkes wrote: >> >> >>> Hmmmm... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Well I'm going to use DL as a firewall/gateway (shorewall, *Swan, >>> Squid, >>> etc.). And IMHO 2.6 is more volatile then 2.4. Take this for example: >>> http://www.debian.org/security/2007/dsa-1356 . Don't get me wrong; I >>> use 2.6 for plenty of production servers. But for the hub of my network >>> I prefer >>> 2.4. I want something rocksolid and I don't need any of the new >>> features in 2.6. So I ask myself (and you guys :-) ) what is the gain >>> for me ? >>> >>> >>> Of course I could be terribly ignorant :) So please share any >>> opinions you guys have on this subject. >> >> I fully agree with you. >> Our main problem which is coming up more and more is hardware >> compatibility. The 2.4 Kernel is rock solid, but the drivers are getting >> a little outdated. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a while until we have DL >> 1.3 where we want >> it, so 1.2 will be around for a little bit. >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Regards >> Heiko Zuerker >> http://www.devil-linux.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list >> Dev...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list >> Dev...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss >> >> >> > > > -- > > > Regards > Heiko Zuerker > http://www.devil-linux.org > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> > http://get.splunk.com/_______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > > -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Devil-linux-discuss mailing list Dev...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss |
|
From: Martin H. <ma...@ho...> - 2007-09-04 07:18:52
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: dev...@li... [mailto:devil- > lin...@li...] On Behalf Of Jasper Siepkes > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:04 PM > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] IPTables NAT module broken in DL 1.2 ? >=20 (...) > So I ask myself (and you guys :-) ) what is the gain for me ? Hardware compatibility. We use new hardware (not only for DL) - and not old PII boxes. Mostly we'd need SATA harddrive support w/o the need of special hardware. > Of course I could be terribly ignorant :) So please share any opinions you > guys have on this subject. hth, martin |
