Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-16 Thread Paul B. Henson
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:15:19PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote: > > sorry, i mispoke, i meant 5015A-* and they dont have a dedicated ipmi port. > > Oh, yah, I've actually got one of those, it's been working great. I was > actually planning on replacing it with this newer one, which supports > mor

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-16 Thread Paul B. Henson
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:42:50PM -0800, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > It's very old. This patch did not make it into the driver and I have > no idea if those chips work through some other change, or not. Likely > not. These older chips must be really buggy pieces of shit if you have > to disable NCQ.

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-16 Thread Paul B. Henson
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:27:08PM +0100, Carsten Larsen wrote: > Maybe just buy the previous model 5015A-*? I have been running one of > those for some years now and it works like a charm. From their website I > see it has reached End-of-Life though. I've actually got one of those, as you say,

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-16 Thread Paul B. Henson
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:34:15AM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > sorry, i mispoke, i meant 5015A-* and they dont have a dedicated ipmi port. Oh, yah, I've actually got one of those, it's been working great. I was actually planning on replacing it with this newer one, which supports more memory

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-16 Thread Carsten Larsen
On 11/16/2013 00:54, Paul B. Henson wrote: Does anybody have any suggestions for a good/cheap 2 port SATA PCI card that supports openbsd? Maybe just buy the previous model 5015A-*? I have been running one of those for some years now and it works like a charm. From their website I see it has rea

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-16 Thread Sebastian Benoit
Paul B. Henson(hen...@acm.org) on 2013.11.15 15:54:04 -0800: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:25:50PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > > > Don't buy this one (yet). The Marvell 88SE9230 SATA does not work. > > i know cause i have one ;-) > > Arg, disappointing, but I'm glad I thought to check before

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-15 Thread Chris Cappuccio
Paul B. Henson [hen...@acm.org] wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:25:50PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > > > Don't buy this one (yet). The Marvell 88SE9230 SATA does not work. > > i know cause i have one ;-) > > Hmm, looks like support was added in FreeBSD back in June 2012: > > http://lists

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-15 Thread Paul B. Henson
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:25:50PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > Don't buy this one (yet). The Marvell 88SE9230 SATA does not work. > i know cause i have one ;-) Hmm, looks like support was added in FreeBSD back in June 2012: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-stable-9/2012-June/00213

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-15 Thread Paul B. Henson
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:25:50PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > Don't buy this one (yet). The Marvell 88SE9230 SATA does not work. > i know cause i have one ;-) Arg, disappointing, but I'm glad I thought to check before buying :). Do you know if anybody's working on it? So much for "standard"

Re: Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-15 Thread Sebastian Benoit
Paul B. Henson(hen...@acm.org) on 2013.11.15 13:59:19 -0800: > I'm looking at a supermicro SuperServer 5017A-EF for openbsd purposes, > it's got an Intel atom S1260 SoC, Marvell 88SE9230 SATA, and i350AM2 dual > gig interfaces. > > It looks like i350 support shipped in 5.2, and I'm pretty sure the

Intel Atom S1260 (SuperServer 5017A-EF)

2013-11-15 Thread Paul B. Henson
I'm looking at a supermicro SuperServer 5017A-EF for openbsd purposes, it's got an Intel atom S1260 SoC, Marvell 88SE9230 SATA, and i350AM2 dual gig interfaces. It looks like i350 support shipped in 5.2, and I'm pretty sure the Marvell chip is AHCI compliant, so I'd think that would be ok, but I'm