Adding SATA Controller Support in initrd

Today we had a problem at work where, after adding two 400G drives and a SATA controller to a server and adding the two drives to the root logical volume, the system would not boot. It would kernel panic because LVM could not find the drives. Turns out the SATA controller driver wasn't being loaded on boot, before the drives are accessed.

The solution was to run mkinird with SATA device probing. It was further surmised that RPM kernel upgrades handle this automatically by reading in the required devices from modprobe.conf.

This solution saved nearly a full day of labor by avoiding a complete server re-install.

Roundup of Work Accomplishments

I've been meaning to create blog of work accomplishments and have never quite gotten around to it, so I'm just going to start dropping them here. Here's a round up of things that I have accomplished so far:

  • cleanupsmbd.pl: Wrote a workaround script to kill off smbd processes before they start to bring a server to a crawl
  • FC5 Deployment: Readied and bugtested FC5 installation procedures for enterprise deployment
  • Overcame LDAP integration issues on FC5
  • Identified kernel panic cause on FC5 systems (running kernel 2.6.17-1.2174 w/e1000 NIC)
  • Configured anaconda and prepared Kickstart for FC5 (near hands-free install)
  • Preliminary work on fully automating branch server configuration (from fresh install to deployment)
  • Wrote runonce script useful for creating things like cron.1min and cron.5min
  • Corrected a long-standing shorewall startup issue relating to linefeeds
  • Wrote a patch to fix the LDAP BDB database on startup if corruption is detected (Redhat Bugzilla 207821)
  • Troubleshooting and adapted Samba configuration procedures to follow new printer permissions standards (deprecated printer admin option)
  • Identified shorewall slow (10 minute) startup cause (Redhat Bugzilla 211338)

Free Freedom?

Just the other day I work I noticed a saying surrounding an American flag posted on someone's cubicle wall, facing the ever-common "Freedom Isn't Free" decal on my manager's office window...

"If it isn't free, It isn't freedom."

But what does it mean? No, seriously. It doesn't make sense. A Google search of the above statement returns only two insufficient
results for this exact phrase, so finding the meaning there was
pointless. Logically, this is the best I can do to understand it...

If this sign/phrase is supposed to be a response to the statement that freedom often requires the selfless sacrifice of human life to maintain it (as history has shown us over and over again), then what does this say? If you can't get/keep your freedom without struggle, then it's not really freedom? Are we supposed to expect from this that others will just give us freedom, and that fighting for it defeats the effect? Sometimes I have to wonder if Liberals either don't understand English, or just don't understand History. In either case, it has got to be due to a great public school miseducation.

All throughout history, the enslaved and oppressed had to fight for their freedom, and lives were always lost. Bending over and taking it in the rear is not freedom. There's always some miscreant ready and willing to step right up with their pants down when you do. To be honest, these sound like the words of an either an idealistic brat or vagrant who cries that they deserve food or pay without work. There's always a price.

Freedom is never free. It never was.