Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:38:24 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: "Schroeder, Aaron" <Aaron.Schroeder@qg.com> Cc: "'Craig Burgess'" <craig@CheetahUSA.net>, Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, alpha <FreeBSD-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Should I wait for 5-RELEASE for "new" machine coming? Message-ID: <15502.4832.856852.697214@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <1F095B0753FCD411857700010333058A03DB9052@waexch1.qgraph.com> References: <1F095B0753FCD411857700010333058A03DB9052@waexch1.qgraph.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Schroeder, Aaron writes: > The 5305 was released by Digital as the "NT only" machine. Although it has > SRM on it, it was only "certified" to run NT. > In the Digital world, this first started with their StorageWorks products, > but the RAID in the white casings was certified as "NT only". The blue and > brown bricks were certified for all 3 platforms Digital worked on, NT, VMS, > and Digital UNIX. At least for some of the NT only boxes, the SRM was hacked to use a negative hwrpb->rpb_type. This allowed them to easily prevent Tru64 and OVMS from running on it. We just multiply by -1 when we find one of these.. Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15502.4832.856852.697214>