FedoraThis forum is for the discussion of the Fedora Project.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I have installed FC7 some time ago and FC8 recently. Both the i386 AND the x86_64 versions. What a disaster! Ask me ONLY if you really want to know.
The strangest thing I noticed in both of these was that the installed systems thought of my drives as scsi (i.e., /dev/sda). My system is an ALL IDE drive system without so much as a scsi ctlr present.
Does anyone know why this happened? And/or why the fedora folks would do such a thing?
Some other distros still do it the old way, which i prefer. I like to know that /dev/hd(a,b,c,d) refer to the four IDE controller slots available. I liked to also know that /dev/sd(x) referred to a SCSI or emulated SCSI device.
Nowadays everything is a SCSI device. Someone told me it had to with streamlining the code in HAL, and also the slow removal of all IDE interfaces in favour of SATA/SCSI interfaces.
I don't have a reference for the change, but only a few bits and pieces I've read from various sources. I'm sure if we peruse the linux kernel mailing list there are discussions concerning the change.
From what I understand it is a desire by the developers to shift to the pata drivers and reduce the amount of code to maintain. Think of it as having two programs that do nearly identical things so rather than maintain both you consolidate them and make your life easier in the long run.
If you really want to see hda instead of sda you can compile your own kernel and include the old IDE drivers. However, as time goes by the shift will be to drop these in favor of the pata drivers since IDE will no longer be maintained.
<snip>Nowadays everything is a SCSI device. Someone told me it had to with streamlining the code in HAL, and also the slow removal of all IDE interfaces in favour of SATA/SCSI interfaces.
I just had a drive fail on me, and pulled an old one out of my junk box as a temporary expedient. It had Windows NT Workstation installed on it, so I was playing around a bit with NT 4.
Per your remark, I was quite surprised to see that NT4 (SP6) saw the drives on my box as "SCSI IDE" drives. (Of course, it "thought" that the ext3 partitions were "free" space, but that's another issue, and not worth discussing.)
Could this be the reason why Fedora 7/8 don't recognize an older IDE CDROM drive installed on my system. Windows XP Pro SP2 recognizes it just fine.
I'm having the same problem with a hard drive. Using FC8. I have a 200GB SATA which gets recognized properly as /dev/sda. The problem is, that I have a 40GB PATA(IDE) hooked up as primary master and FC doesn't see it at all. Nothing under fdisk -l except the 200GB. I know the drive is working. I see it in the BIOS and with XP just fine.
I'm assuming under the new naming convention that the primary master IDE drives are being renamed to /dev/sda and perhaps that's conflicting with my ACTUAL SATA /dev/sda?
Actually I built a new kernel and then had to change /etc/fstab and /boot/grub/grub.conf to use the "old" notation, /dev/hd?...
I just downloaded the kernel from ftp.kernel.org, ungzip/tar'd it, copied the .config from my older kernel to the dir that popped out, typed in make xconfig, just saved the file and then ran my kernel bld script... And, poof, new kernel, old drive notation active.
I didn't turn off anything specific in the kernel config.
My article that I keep trying to remember to post, is a good discussion on what's happening with the old ide and the new pata device support. I don't care much for it but it looks like the old ide support is a real nightmare and the newer is much easier to maintain... My objection is to the sacrafices that are made to implement the new method of support. Things like fewer partitions allowed in the new support scheme. :-(
Thank you for the info grgoffe. I don't think I want to rebuild my kernel anymore due to constant system changing (usually cuz I get bored and try something new or another distro). Well I guess it's time to put the IDE drive into my kids computer or something.
I was just more curious as to what the heck was happening. In your link Cox mentions that they are working on implementing PATA better with the new layer. Maybe someday, but I can live without the drive.
I used to use it for a kind of storage drive accessible from Fedora and XP, but now with the nice NTFS support and windows ext drivers I think I'll be fine.