[sane-devel] Mandrake 9.1 and ServeRAID 5i

Raf Schietekat Raf_Schietekat@ieee.org
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:56:17 +0200

abel deuring wrote:

> Well, some RAID controllers have themselves an SG device file for
> "maintenance purposes": to configure, which disks belong to an array, to
> replace a disk in an array and whatever else you can do with a RAID
> contoller. And the ServeRaid seems to be such a controller, so there is
> a need for SG device file nodes under /dev. While this also means that
> the virtual RAID disks will have both an SG and an SD device file, it
> should not cause any risk to issue two INQUIRY commands to their SG
> device file, if they behave well...

Let's see, with the test you suggested (IBM says they won't support 
Mandrake, so...):
# sane-find-scanner -v 2>&1 | tee /mnt/floppy/log-v
No failure, even after a few repetitions. In a different shell (I admit 
I don't immediately know how to get rid of SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_SCSI otherwise):
# sane-find-scanner -q 2>&1 | tee /mnt/floppy/log-q
# while true; do sane-find-scanner -q > /dev/null; done
No failure. Hmm, strange, nothing on the floppy, and the files are still 
in /mnt/floppy when looking from the shell (even though the floppy is no 
longer in the drive). Guess I'll still have to configure that, somehow 
(luckily it was not required). Well, anyway, this is what's in log-q:
found SCSI processor "IBM SERVERAID 1.00" at /dev/sg1
found SCSI processor "IBM 32P0042a S320  1 1" at /dev/sg2
found SCSI processor "IBM SERVERAID 1.00" at /dev/sgb
found SCSI processor "IBM 32P0042a S320  1 1" at /dev/sgc
My questions to you:
- Isn't sane-find-scanner supposed to only find scanners? Shouldn't it 
return nothing, and isn't this the first stone falling in a domino effect?
- Maybe the rest of scannerdrake etc. invokes other SANE programs for 
these devices, that will upset the RAID card? Does that sound plausible? 
I'll go have a look anyway.


Raf Schietekat <Raf_Schietekat@ieee.org>