No Hard drive device found at Fedora Core 3

[Rick Stevens]

mylar wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 13:06, Rick Stevens wrote:
> 
>>Emanuel Mauritzson wrote:
>>
>>>Having problems again,
>>>
>>>Red hat 9 didn´t support SATA harddriver. But Fedora Core 3 should.
>>>
>>>But i get the same message  No Devices found and then the system reboots.
>>>
>>>My Hardware:
>>>Operating System:    Red Hat Linux 9
>>>Motherboard:        Intel D925XCV
>>>CPU:            Intel Pentium 4
>>>Memory            1GB (2 x 512MB DDR2 PC400 modules)
>>>Hard Drive:        Seagate Barracuda SATA 80GB
>>>
>>>Any tips?
>>
>>If you must have RH9 and SATA, you'll have to go to your SATA controller
>>vendor's website and see if they have a driver disk for RH9.  If they
>>do, download it to a floppy following their instructions, then install
>>RH9 using this command at the "boot:" command
>>
>>	linux dd
>>
>>When the installer asks for the driver disk, pop the floppy into the
>>drive and hit ENTER.
>>
>>You'd be much better off with FC2 or FC3, both of which have native
>>SATA support..  RH9 is a dead operating system.  It reached end of life
>>in April of 2004.
> 
> 
> So what's the deal with SATA ? Is SATA ultimately going to replace all
> PATA controllers ?? Some new mommyboards seem to have one SATA
> controller (meant for 2 SATA hard drives) and one standard PATA
> controller meant for IDE CDROMS & DVD drives (although I've installed
> hard drives on it anyhow). Is SATA going to be the wave of the very near
> future ?

Not necessarily.  SATA is faster than any parallel IDE interface.  It is
almost, but not quite, as fast as fast, wide SCSI (SCSI-3).  It's easier
to cable up than SCSI and the cables can be longer.

However, the drives currently are more expensive than IDE, but generally
less than equivalent SCSI drives.  IDE is SCSI, stripped-down to save
money.  ATA is essentially SCSI commands sent over IDE interfaces.  SATA
is a higher performance form of ATA.

Personally, except for server systems, I see very little benefit of SATA
over IDE.  And since you can only have two SATA drives per controller
(just like IDE), I don't think it's that great for servers, either.  For
most servers, you want something more beefy than a software RAID 1, more
like a hardware RAID 4, RAID 5, or RAID 10 and they all still require
SCSI.

<soap>
I find it funny that the hard drive makers are parallelling the
MSDOS/Windows fiasco of a development cycle.  When Microsoft essentially
stole CP/M to create MSDOS, network code was already in the product (I
know...I was one of the authors).  Microsoft ripped it out, and now has
spent the last 15 years trying to put back in stable network code.  The
IDE/ATA/SATA makers are attempting to get back to the speeds and
flexibility that SCSI had 15 years ago and they abandoned.
</soap>

"There's never time to do it right...but there's ALWAYS time to do it
over!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer     rstevens at vitalstream.com -
- VitalStream, Inc.                       http://www.vitalstream.com -
-                                                                    -
-  The problem with being poor is that it takes up all of your time  -
----------------------------------------------------------------------