[Summary] Errors w/ DU4.0d PK5 or FW 5.5 due to obsolete hardware ?

From: Blake Roberts <BLAROB_at_HBSI.COM>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 15:51:55 -0800

>From the responses that I got from the following:

Stephen LaBelle
Rodrigo Poblete
Walter North

All said the same thing. This was a bug that was found on the 8x00 class
servers with PK5. It had nothing to do with the firmware level (one had the
problem with FW 5.4), or the KFTIA module. This was a problem with the
patch kit itself, which is fixed by replacing the isp.mod file. This will
be included in PK6 when released.

Best regards,
Blake Roberts
UNIX Systems Administrator
HBS International
425.455.2652 x507
800.290.8982 x507
blarob_at_hbsi.com



Original Question:

> We had some wierdness happen with our tape backup system on an 8200
running
> DU 4.0D PK5 and Firmware 5.5 on the first backup after our upgrade. We
had
> 3 tape drives out of 5 error due to bus resets on the SCSI busses that
they
> were attached to. Each drive (all TZ89's) is on its own controller for
> maximum throughput. Two of the drives are on controllers inside a KFTIA
> module, and the third is on a KZPSA which is linked via a KFTHA hose. We
> logged a call with support, and engineering released a patch that modified
> our "isp.mod" file, which seems to have fixed the problem. They have seen
> this problem with people who are running PK5 and/or FW 5.5 on systems with
> multiple controllers.
>
> We are somewhat wary of the answer that we got from Compaq Support for
this.
> We also have an 8400 running the same OS/FW revisions with 5 TZ89's
attached
> without any problems. The difference between the two is that we do not
have
> a KFTIA on the 8400. All 5 tape drives are running off of KZPSA's linked
to
> a KFTHA module. I know that the SCSI busses on a KFTIA show up as "isp#"
> devices on the system, which is also fueling our suspicions.
>
> Since KFTIA's are obsolete hardware now, could there be a problem where
the
> firmware is not supported anymore and the FW5.5 CD screwed things up?
Could
> it be the patch instead? Or was Compaq Support exactly right and we just
> tripped on a bug in the PK?
>
> Our minds would rest easier with any sort of hint. :)
>
Received on Mon Dec 27 1999 - 23:52:53 NZDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed Nov 08 2023 - 11:53:40 NZDT