Hello SuSE folkz, We have a big problem - unable to install SuSE 9.2 on our new dual AMD-64bit Opteron machine with Adaptec 2120S RAID-5 controller. I tend to suspect that it's because 64-bit version of SuSE 9.2 has been provided on a single side dual layer DVD alongside with 32-bit version. Test install of the previous distro of SuSE 9.1 64-bit version went just fine (it had two side DVD with 32-bit on one and 64-bit on another side). Here are the problems: 1. In normal and save installation modes SuSE 9.2 installer hangs indefinitely on 'searching for info file'. End of story. 2. In manual installation mode SuSE 9.2 installer loads proper drivers (e.g aacraid for Adaptec 2120S RAID) but it exits its graphical mode with a report 'No hard drives found'. Test install of 32-bit version of SuSE 9.2 from the CDs went just fine but what is the advantage of using 32-bit OS on 64-bit platform!? Could somebody please give me a practical advise how to overcome this issue. SuSE staff, please make your comments on this problem. Regards, Alex
Alex, I cannot comment on your specific situation. But can tell you that SLES 9 64-bit installs just fine on our dual Opteron servers. Better yet it comes as 5 CD's. One good think that Novell did was drop the price of SLES 9 for x86 and AMD64 from $800 to $349. I "believe" its certified for that AMD controller also (for irony we use the Intel RAID controllers on our Opteron servers). Its an option in case you cannot get 9.2 Pro to work. - Richard Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hello SuSE folkz, We have a big problem - unable to install SuSE 9.2 on our new dual AMD-64bit Opteron machine with Adaptec 2120S RAID-5 controller. I tend to suspect that it's because 64-bit version of SuSE 9.2 has been provided on a single side dual layer DVD alongside with 32-bit version. Test install of the previous distro of SuSE 9.1 64-bit version went just fine (it had two side DVD with 32-bit on one and 64-bit on another side).
Here are the problems:
1. In normal and save installation modes SuSE 9.2 installer hangs indefinitely on 'searching for info file'. End of story.
2. In manual installation mode SuSE 9.2 installer loads proper drivers (e.g aacraid for Adaptec 2120S RAID) but it exits its graphical mode with a report 'No hard drives found'.
Test install of 32-bit version of SuSE 9.2 from the CDs went just fine but what is the advantage of using 32-bit OS on 64-bit platform!?
Could somebody please give me a practical advise how to overcome this issue. SuSE staff, please make your comments on this problem.
Regards,
Alex
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:58:19PM -0700, Richard Mixon (qwest) wrote: Richard, Thanks for your reply. Why should we spend additional $349 for SLES 9 if SuSE 9.2 shall install and work on 64-bit platform as it advertised? Doesn't it sound kind of MicroSoftish - paying more money for virtually the same functionality? For God sake Linux is Linux no matter who distributes it. We don't need any commercial phone support nether other Novell marketing pitches. Why SuSE 9.1 (before it was sold to Novell) 64-bit version installed on the same machine without a hitch? If it's going to be a new Novell marketing trend to charge separately for the each hardware platform then we'll have to kick SuSE from our eng. dept. for good and switch to other less greedy Linux vendor. Alex
Alex,
I cannot comment on your specific situation. But can tell you that SLES 9 64-bit installs just fine on our dual Opteron servers. Better yet it comes as 5 CD's.
One good think that Novell did was drop the price of SLES 9 for x86 and AMD64 from $800 to $349. I "believe" its certified for that AMD controller also (for irony we use the Intel RAID controllers on our Opteron servers).
Its an option in case you cannot get 9.2 Pro to work.
- Richard
Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hello SuSE folkz, We have a big problem - unable to install SuSE 9.2 on our new dual AMD-64bit Opteron machine with Adaptec 2120S RAID-5 controller. I tend to suspect that it's because 64-bit version of SuSE 9.2 has been provided on a single side dual layer DVD alongside with 32-bit version. Test install of the previous distro of SuSE 9.1 64-bit version went just fine (it had two side DVD with 32-bit on one and 64-bit on another side).
Here are the problems:
1. In normal and save installation modes SuSE 9.2 installer hangs indefinitely on 'searching for info file'. End of story.
2. In manual installation mode SuSE 9.2 installer loads proper drivers (e.g aacraid for Adaptec 2120S RAID) but it exits its graphical mode with a report 'No hard drives found'.
Test install of 32-bit version of SuSE 9.2 from the CDs went just fine but what is the advantage of using 32-bit OS on 64-bit platform!?
Could somebody please give me a practical advise how to overcome this issue. SuSE staff, please make your comments on this problem.
Regards,
Alex
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Hi Alex, 9.2 (and 9.1) install just fine on AMD X86-64 Tyan S2875's with SATA disk drives. It was probably the easiest SuSE install I've done, since 5.2. I used the dual-layer DVD, it figured out what to do without my prompting. Is your mobo bios up-to-date? Regards, Lew Wolfgang Alex Daniloff wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:58:19PM -0700, Richard Mixon (qwest) wrote:
Richard, Thanks for your reply. Why should we spend additional $349 for SLES 9 if SuSE 9.2 shall install and work on 64-bit platform as it advertised? Doesn't it sound kind of MicroSoftish - paying more money for virtually the same functionality? For God sake Linux is Linux no matter who distributes it. We don't need any commercial phone support nether other Novell marketing pitches. Why SuSE 9.1 (before it was sold to Novell) 64-bit version installed on the same machine without a hitch? If it's going to be a new Novell marketing trend to charge separately for the each hardware platform then we'll have to kick SuSE from our eng. dept. for good and switch to other less greedy Linux vendor.
Alex
Alex,
I cannot comment on your specific situation. But can tell you that SLES 9 64-bit installs just fine on our dual Opteron servers. Better yet it comes as 5 CD's.
One good think that Novell did was drop the price of SLES 9 for x86 and AMD64 from $800 to $349. I "believe" its certified for that AMD controller also (for irony we use the Intel RAID controllers on our Opteron servers).
Its an option in case you cannot get 9.2 Pro to work.
- Richard
Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hello SuSE folkz, We have a big problem - unable to install SuSE 9.2 on our new dual AMD-64bit Opteron machine with Adaptec 2120S RAID-5 controller. I tend to suspect that it's because 64-bit version of SuSE 9.2 has been provided on a single side dual layer DVD alongside with 32-bit version. Test install of the previous distro of SuSE 9.1 64-bit version went just fine (it had two side DVD with 32-bit on one and 64-bit on another side).
Here are the problems:
1. In normal and save installation modes SuSE 9.2 installer hangs indefinitely on 'searching for info file'. End of story.
2. In manual installation mode SuSE 9.2 installer loads proper drivers (e.g aacraid for Adaptec 2120S RAID) but it exits its graphical mode with a report 'No hard drives found'.
Test install of 32-bit version of SuSE 9.2 from the CDs went just fine but what is the advantage of using 32-bit OS on 64-bit platform!?
Could somebody please give me a practical advise how to overcome this issue. SuSE staff, please make your comments on this problem.
Regards,
Alex
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
*** Reply to message from Lew Wolfgang
Why should we spend additional $349 for SLES 9 if SuSE 9.2 shall install and work on 64-bit platform as it advertised? Doesn't it sound kind of MicroSoftish - paying more money for virtually the same functionality?
IIRC there is more support for the SLES pltform . Aimed at businesses that want someone to choke when things go awry, as they will from time to time. I htink it also includes something like, you won't have to upgrade for X years and will still have all the functionality etc. you expect. We ( Novel/Suse ) will MAKE it work for you. Something like that. You pay extra for the baby sitting and anything else that makes bosses nervous. Eventually, w/ all the new Computer Sci guys graduating , there will be less need for this type of thing. BUT remember if it's a new install, the guys in the big chairs and corner offices want to be assured that they won't get into any problems by okaying the deal. It's a lot of procey CYA in one sense. -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? '
Alex, I am not a particularly large business (some say SLES is only for larger "enterprises"), but the extra $250 is easily worth it to me. I get security patches and guaranteed support -- and I access the update servers much more consistently. Plus much better support for real RAID cards, multiple-port NICs, etc. I'm not saying you cannot get them to work on any other version of Linux - its just saves me a lot of time. I hesitated on our last server - then realized that I would probably pay for the extra $250 several times over within a few months. In the future I may re-evaluate (especially if I need some bleeding edge features that I do from time to time), but for now its SLES. To each his own. - Richard Alex Daniloff wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:58:19PM -0700, Richard Mixon (qwest) wrote:
Richard, Thanks for your reply. Why should we spend additional $349 for SLES 9 if SuSE 9.2 shall install and work on 64-bit platform as it advertised? Doesn't it sound kind of MicroSoftish - paying more money for virtually the same functionality? For God sake Linux is Linux no matter who distributes it. We don't need any commercial phone support nether other Novell marketing pitches. Why SuSE 9.1 (before it was sold to Novell) 64-bit version installed on the same machine without a hitch? If it's going to be a new Novell marketing trend to charge separately for the each hardware platform then we'll have to kick SuSE from our eng. dept. for good and switch to other less greedy Linux vendor.
Alex
Alex,
I cannot comment on your specific situation. But can tell you that SLES 9 64-bit installs just fine on our dual Opteron servers. Better yet it comes as 5 CD's.
One good think that Novell did was drop the price of SLES 9 for x86 and AMD64 from $800 to $349. I "believe" its certified for that AMD controller also (for irony we use the Intel RAID controllers on our Opteron servers).
Its an option in case you cannot get 9.2 Pro to work.
- Richard
Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hello SuSE folkz, We have a big problem - unable to install SuSE 9.2 on our new dual AMD-64bit Opteron machine with Adaptec 2120S RAID-5 controller. ... SNIP
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 03:12, Alex Daniloff wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:58:19PM -0700, Richard Mixon (qwest) wrote:
Richard, Thanks for your reply. Why should we spend additional $349 for SLES 9 if SuSE 9.2 shall install and work on 64-bit platform as it advertised?
Because probably you don't use dual Opterons in your home desktop but rather on a server at your company's. So you should go for SLES, because that's intended for this kind of usage not play like Professional is. Even if you can make it work for your own particular purpose, this time. The Enterprise products have IT industry support and certifications, it's not just the phone support from Novell that you're getting, it's much more. And Pro 9.2 should install on Opterons, you're right about that, but you're wrong using it for anything other that your own play-desktop in your company.
tisdag 16 november 2004 02:12 skrev Alex Daniloff:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:58:19PM -0700, Richard Mixon (qwest) wrote:
Richard, Thanks for your reply. Why should we spend additional $349 for SLES 9 if SuSE 9.2 shall install and work on 64-bit platform as it advertised? Doesn't it sound kind of MicroSoftish - paying more money for virtually the same functionality? For God sake Linux is Linux no matter who distributes it. We don't need any commercial phone support nether other Novell marketing pitches. Why SuSE 9.1 (before it was sold to Novell) 64-bit version installed on the same machine without a hitch? If it's going to be a new Novell marketing trend to charge separately for the each hardware platform then we'll have to kick SuSE from our eng. dept. for good and switch to other less greedy Linux vendor.
Installed 9.2 on my AMD64 with a brand new Barracuda SATA drive. Went smooth, except for the final installation of the boot manager, that required a bit of manual hacking.
Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hello SuSE folkz, We have a big problem - unable to install SuSE 9.2 on our new dual AMD-64bit Opteron machine with Adaptec 2120S RAID-5 controller. I tend to suspect that it's because 64-bit version of SuSE 9.2 has been provided on a single side dual layer DVD alongside with 32-bit version. Test install of the previous distro of SuSE 9.1 64-bit version went just fine (it had two side DVD with 32-bit on one and 64-bit on another side).
Here are the problems:
1. In normal and save installation modes SuSE 9.2 installer hangs indefinitely on 'searching for info file'. End of story.
This one is easy, either put a floppy in the drive or wait a long time for it to move on, I've seen this problem since about 8.0 or 8.1 and I've had it this evening on a laptop that has no floppy.
2. In manual installation mode SuSE 9.2 installer loads proper drivers (e.g aacraid for Adaptec 2120S RAID) but it exits its graphical mode with a report 'No hard drives found'.
I pass up on this one.
Test install of 32-bit version of SuSE 9.2 from the CDs went just fine but what is the advantage of using 32-bit OS on 64-bit platform!?
On 64-bit, there were some problems with 9.1 building some apps, haven't checked it out yet on 9.2 x86_64. I can't see any advantage, I run 64-bit 9.2, upgraded from 9.1 fine. 64-bit is native and I'd expect 64-bit apps to run faster, kernel builds are certainly faster on the x86_64 laptop XP3000+/slower clock speed than on 32-bit XP3000+, both with with 512MB, though the laptop has 1024M cache, so that may be the difference. Regards Sid.
Could somebody please give me a practical advise how to overcome this issue. SuSE staff, please make your comments on this problem.
Regards,
Alex
-- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer =====LINUX ONLY USED HERE=====
Did you try the suse-amd64@suse.com list too. Tirsdag 16 november 2004 00:21 skrev Alex Daniloff:
Hello SuSE folkz, We have a big problem - unable to install SuSE 9.2 on our new dual AMD-64bit Opteron machine with Adaptec 2120S RAID-5 controller. I tend to suspect that it's because 64-bit version of SuSE 9.2 has been provided on a single side dual layer DVD alongside with 32-bit version. Test install of the previous distro of SuSE 9.1 64-bit version went just fine (it had two side DVD with 32-bit on one and 64-bit on another side).
Here are the problems:
1. In normal and save installation modes SuSE 9.2 installer hangs indefinitely on 'searching for info file'. End of story.
2. In manual installation mode SuSE 9.2 installer loads proper drivers (e.g aacraid for Adaptec 2120S RAID) but it exits its graphical mode with a report 'No hard drives found'.
Test install of 32-bit version of SuSE 9.2 from the CDs went just fine but what is the advantage of using 32-bit OS on 64-bit platform!?
Could somebody please give me a practical advise how to overcome this issue. SuSE staff, please make your comments on this problem.
Regards,
Alex
participants (8)
-
Alex Daniloff -
jfweber＠bellsouth.net -
Johan Nielsen -
Lew Wolfgang -
Richard Mixon (qwest) -
Sid Boyce -
Silviu Marin-Caea -
Örn Hansen