Compaq Ultra2 SCSI driver won't load under SFT III

Well, your first problem is that you're trying to do this with an ancient, unsupported version of NetWare. You are aware that NetWare v4.11 has been EOLed for YEARS, aren't you? I'm not even sure that NetWare v4 has been tested on the ProLiant M-series, let alone tested for SFT-III.

Which brings up the point - WHY SFT-III?

Are you aware that NetWare v6.x (the latest is v6.5, and the next release, dubbed Open Enterprise Server because it will give you a CHOICE of Linux or NetWare kernels, is due out in the next 120 days or so, giving you an idea just how old v4.11 is) ships with a 2-node Cluster Services license INCLUDED in the OS? That means you can implement failover out-of-the-box...and the hardware doesn't have to be exact duplicate, either.

I think you need to pay attention to the error messages you're seeing. CPQSCSI is not for the SFT-III environment and the CPQS710 driver is not compatible with that hardware. And your NOS selection is about 5 years out of date. Instead of trying to get an elderly version to run on newer hardware, and instead of trying to implement server failover using outdated technology like SFT-III, why not use a version of NetWare from THIS century instead of last?

You can download the ISOs for the latest version (v6.5) of NetWare with the latest Support Pack (SP2) already applied from --> http://support.novell.com/servlet/filedownload/sec/pub/nw65ossp2.exe/ and --> http://support.novell.com/servlet/filedownload/sec/pub/nw65prodsp2.exe/. There is one critical Post-SP2 patch --> http://support.novell.com/servlet/filedownload/uns/pub/edir8733.exe/. You can see the other patches available at --> http://support.novell.com/filefinder/18197/index.html

Install it without a license and it defaults to a 2-user trial version. Beyond being able to get rid of IPX (NetWare hasn't required IPX fince v5.0 came out...in 1999), modern NetWare ships with Apache webserver, MySQL, Perl, PHP, OpenSSH, and Tomcat JSP server.

I'd try that out before I spent hours or days banging my head against the Compaqs trying to run an outdated version of NetWare.

I don't want to turn this into a debate about the value of SFT III. Let's stay with the topic.
I'm aware that the CPQSCSI is not for the SFT III environment and that the CPQS710 is not working with this controller. This is evident from the error messages. I'm hoping someone is familiar with SFT III and this controller and can tell me what DSK driver will work with it.

I haven't used 4.x for at least 5 years.  If Compaq/HP doesn't provide a NW4.11 SFT-III compatible driver for the device, I think you're SOL as far as retasking your ML370's as an SFTIII/4.11 pair.

I think the CPQS710.DSK driver is for an Adaptec controller.  You need to find an LSI/SYMBIOS controller driver.  If HP doesn't have one in their downloadables, you should see if there's an LSI/SYMBIOS generic driver rather than the Compaq OEM driver.

You also can try searching on driverguide, I suppose, but that's not likely to give you satisfaction.

The problem with HP is that they have gone to packaging their drivers in an installer that only looks at the currently loaded drivers to see if they need upgrading. It doesn't provide a way to get to the drivers in the package that aren't already loaded.
I have checked LSI's website but oddly they don't list the 53c1510. I emailed their support dept. and am waiting for a response.

For me, at least, this isn't a debate about the value of SFT-III. It was very valuable....5 YEARS ago.

But today, 2004...almost 2005....its outdated. Its not supported. It places restrictions on you that you don't have with Clustering.

Clustering is INCLUDED with modern NetWare. All you need is some shareable disk space.

If you want to stick with an old, unsupported version of NetWare like v4.11, well, you are demonstrating the solid business value of NetWare. After all, how many servers running NT v3.51 do you still have in your environment (assuming you ever had some)? None, I'll warrant. No one runs such an old version of NT on a server: they either got sick of Windoze and moved to something more stable/secure, or they've been on the upgrade treadmill. In either case (assuming they didn't avoid the Windoze trap altogether), that business investment ceased delivering returns years ago. But you're still getting business value from NetWare. So I can understand your reluctance to move to a modern version.

At the same time, given its age, all its doing is making life harder for you. I suggest to you that the cost of the extra time and effort you're likely to spend, with no guarantee of success, is outweighing the "savings" of not moving to a modern version. And it'll only get worse, given how old and outdated that v4.11 is.

There should be one on the Compaq/HP SmartStart CD that shipped with that server.  However, Compaq/HP officially don't support NetWare 3.x/4.x and 5.0 anymore - so most likely they haven't written a driver that will support the hardware under 4.11 - they pretty much support only NetWare 5.1, 6.0 and 6.5.

So, your best bet is that SmartStart CD that came with the server.

If you don't have one, let me know, I have several versions, I can find the .DSK (if it exists) and e-mail it to you.

To whom it concerns: Let me tell you (again) that EOL-ing every question even remotely related to 3.12 or 4.x are just trashing the topics, *very boring* and annoying too and won't help. I sincerely suggest you to stop doing this, if you don't have other valuable comments. The other option would be that I'd remind you to this in every topic you say the word "EOL" or "upgrade", but I'd rather do something more useful. Thank you for the understanding.

Mirroring (SFT III) <> Clustering.

And now, to the question:
For your luck, I installed a ProLiant ML370 two months ago with a NetWare 3.12 on it.  :-]]]
And yes, the SCSI disk driver worked too...
[2.8GHz XEON, 2GB RAM, 2*18.2GB SCSI harddisks on a HP Ultra3 (Adaptec 29160) controller,
screenshots: http://www.huweb.hu/maques/nwudma312scr2.htm ]
I don't remember now, but I've either used the ADPT160M.HAM driver from Adaptec,
or the old Compaq (CPQ***.DSK) from an old [4.9?] SmartStart CD.
I'll try to find it out for tomorrow and let you know.

Why would you load 3.12? It's even more EOL then 4.12! (sorry, couldn't help it.)
BTW, PsiCop, what you call the "cost of the extra time and effort" I call "billable hours".

The CPQSCSI.HAM driver works fine on Netware but won't load on SFT. I went through loading all the DSK drivers from the SmartStart CD but none of them recognized the controllers. I'm still hoping to hear from LSI.

I was under the impression .HAM drivers for for NetWare 4.10 and above...

I am using 4.11.

Maques comment on using ADPT160M.HAM on 3.12

Also, an adaptec driver won't help any with an LSI controller...  Not all ML370's had the same devices (obviously.)

scarpenter, I hope you hear from LSI, too.   Too bad HP chose to use their sucky support model instead of keeping Compaq's.  That was always one of the major reasons for choosing Compaq servers over HP - Compaq's support blew the doors off HP's, starting with their website and down through the RomPaq's and SoftPaq's.

They ruined Insight Manager, too.  :((

SC..
Try using LSI8XXNW.HAM for your driver, this should work with nearly every 53 Class LSI host adapter.
You should be able to get it from LSI at http://www.lsilogic.com/downloads/license.do?id=2000&did=2928&pid=2207

-Mojo

The 3.12 comment was a joke at PsiCop's expense. If installing 4.11 made no sense to him 3.12 makes even less. The truth is that I have customers running quite happily on 3.12 and if the hardware died today they would probably replace it and reload 3.12. Novell's direction started changing with Netware 5 to compete more effectively with M$. Prior to that they considered M$ a joke. In many ways the pre-5 OS's were superior and they'll be in service for may years to come.
M$ seems to get this, never making a product that can go more than a few years without upgrading:)

The ANYOS option works to override the SFT III warning. I guess the only way to find out how stable it is will be to start testing. I'm still hoping for LSI to come through but this is a possibilty.

"Novell's direction started changing with Netware 5 to compete more effectively with M$."

wellllll... if by that you mean they started using NCP over IP....

and they web-enabled a lot of their tools.

However, the 5.1 version of NetWare has a superior elevator-seek algorithm that was much better then the one in 3.x or 4.x

The ability to handle larger files and in much greater numbers...
The ability to handle much larger amounts of addressable RAM...
If you haven't worked with NSS, then you haven't seen a 76GB volume mount in under 5 seconds.  Try doing that in NW3.x...

I really don't see how you can say pre-5.x OS's were superior to the post 5.x NetWare NOS...

I think it is a pointless argument. One likes this, one likes that.
It's like compare Windows xxx server to a NetWare one.

Some "facts" (mostly based on real life experience) on why I like the old product line, and why I don't like the new (from 5.0) and Novell's behavior with it.
We have at least a dosen customer using 3.12 and 4.x-es (whom didn't "upgrade" to the "crippleware" as someone refers).
As long as they don't want to run apache and perl on it, they're fine. And they don't want to do that. I don't miss native IP, NDPS and Console One or other gadgets either.
Since 3.12 and 4.x are simple, they very easy to put in a working state [if someone was lucky to break it]. I had an 5.x where the 1st disk died, and the second disk didn't have the proper files on the DOS partition. Sure, it was not the fault of NW5 alone. But getting the proper service packed files and make NICI and the other crap (dependencies) work was a nightmare.
5.x - Java (Console One) was [is?] a nightmare too. I turned out from Novell, when I was forced to enter some basic settings (server name, ipx?) on a Java screen at install.
Solving the "Let's have IP based utilities only" problem was easy. They removed the ones which didn't work with ip (systime, castoff, netadmin, etc.).
Administration - Elm street too. Some things you could only do in netadmin. Some only in NWAdmin [+snapins]. And some only in Console One. And now, we finally have a web based stuff, but I heard  that you still need C1 to do certain things...
Most of our customers don't really have files above 4GB. And they don't care how long it takes to mount the 76GB volume, cause it is stable enough to stay up for months if not years. Sure, if you want to do a mounting contest, no wonder who wins. But NSS ranks good place for errors too... I met some from the early years till now as well.

I'd rather say these old products are not "EOL"-ed, they're is "finished". Stable - but no more advancements.
Indeed, if you need extra functions like you mentioned, you have to upgrade. But not necessarily to the newest NWOS-es... You can cry an "EOL" if someone wants a webcluster on a 3.12.
But please don't if someone just inherited a 3.12 and asks how to add a new user. The "expert" answer is not "EOL" or "Upgrade" in this case. After all, if one wants to hear such, he can turn to the official support... Let's be experts, let's make a difference...

[and no, I'm not scarpenter104's other alias :-]

Back to the topic.
"The ANYOS option works to override the SFT III warning."
I guess, this is what exactly it does. I reckon it is "not supported" like 3.12 and others, which means it could very well work... But that's an "I AGREE" for the "Kids, don't try this at home" warning.
Who dares, wins. [Though make backups of the important stuff first...]

And for the fun part (again) -
"ANYÓS" in hungarian means: "mother-in-law".
http://szotar.sztaki.hu/dict_search.php?W=any%F3s
[I crippled the link, so don't care about the warnings on the page. You'll see the point.]

I said in many ways, not all ways. However, if you don't care what protocol you're server uses (many people don't) and you don't need web-enabled tools (many people don't) and you don't want to devote processor power to a Java enabled GUI (just to look more like M$) and you don't need a web server, database server, etc., a pre-5 OS runs like a tight little piece of steel. I had a customer call me who didn't know where their server was. It was literally in the back of a closet covered in dust. No one knew where it was because for three years it just worked.
Novell has certainly made improvements since then but they've also had to react to Microsoft, not always for the better. My only point in bringing this up was to say that the pre 5 OS's and later OS's are distinctly different and I can appreciate the benefits of both.
Thanks for the comments, they help pass the time while I wait for LSI to respond to my email:)

It all depends on what you want to do.  If your server platform is only serving up a stable set of files that never grows appreciably, your printers never break and need replacing with new ones, your server hardware never fails, and you don't need (or want) to use any current technology, then, yes, the old, obsolete NetWare versions work well.

The "or want" part of my statement is in reference to those upgrades that occur just because TPTB wants them to.

If you DO need (or want) to use and support current technologies, then you can't use the obsolete platforms.

In a couple of years, you're not going to be able to retask a 2-3 year old server to run NW4.x or 3.x, because the hardware simply will not work.  There never were (or will be) Gigabit ethernet drivers for 3.x or 4.x.  That's just one example.  Unless you happen to have an old Novell developer kit and know how to use it, so you can write your own drivers, you'll be SOL.

Even if you do get an obsolete NetWare to run on current hardware, you won't be able to take advantage of the new hardware's features.  You'll be stuck with the 386 architecture limits forever.

Sure, that's fine for some folx.  They don't need anything else.  They still run PC-DOS 3 on their 286 PC's and are happy as pigs in slop doing their WordStar documents and Visicalc spreadsheets.  They can't share anything with their business partners, though.  Is that a good business choice?  Maybe they think so.

Ya know, everyone that has been in the business world for more than a few years remembers WordPerfect 5 and 123 release 4 as being far superior than what they suffer with now from Microsoft, but that doesn't mean they don't use Office 2003 anyway.

As I suggested in another thread, advising people to stick with obsolete products, claiming that they are actually supported when they're not, is not an honorable activity.  Sure, we shouldn't belittle them for working with what they have, and should try to help fix their problems.  That doesn't mean that the best fix for their particular problem isn't to plan to get off the obsolete platform.  There are times (more and more frequently) when what is being asked is simply not possible - like wanting to connect to 3.12 over an IP-only WAP from a WinXP laptop that only has IP installed, for instance.

Maybe Maques should post a request the EE staff to create a subset of the NetWare TA specific to support of obsolete NetWare products.  I , personally, like to live in the present with an eye to the future, and make my recommendations based on what gives competitive advantage.  If I can remember what I did eight years ago to fix a problem with 3.12, I will post that.  However, I don't find it in anyone's interest to be creative with finding ways to waste current hardware technology by coming up with workarounds and kludges to get obsolete software to run on it.

>>It all depends on what you want to do.
Like I said.

>>your printers never break and need replacing with new ones,
I fail to see why a new printer would cause any trouble. Of course you can't connect a USB only printer to an NW server, but that you probably survive. Desktop printer for the desktops. And you would use a print server anyway, wouldn't you? :-)

>>In a couple of years, you're not going to be able to retask a 2-3 year old server to run NW4.x or 3.x, because the hardware simply will not work.
Wanna bet? (Fail to see why. Unforunately the 80386 architecture emulation is and will be with us for a time.)
Maybe 5.1/6.5 will be EOL-ed sooner. Keep that in mind.

>>There never were (or will be) Gigabit ethernet drivers for 3.x or 4.x.  That's just one example.
Very bad example.
http://www.huweb.hu/maques/nwudma312scr2.htm - picture 2, NetWare 3.12 with a Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit adapter. Broadcom chips used in 3Com, Dell and Compaq "manufactured" LAN cards too. I also succesfully installed systems with Intel, D-Link and Realtek gigabit cards running 3.12/4.x-es in the last 1-2 years.

>>Even if you do get an obsolete NetWare to run on current hardware, you won't be able to take advantage of the new hardware's features.
Like what? Multimedia extension, DirectX or USB on a NW Server? Thanks, but no thanks.

>>They still run PC-DOS 3 on their 286 PC's and are happy as pigs in slop doing their WordStar documents and Visicalc spreadsheets.
No. They use P4-s, Windows XP and Office. Fail to see why call them pigs, just because they don't upgrade their servers every 2 years.
Microsoft products were/are buggy and lack/lacked features. [Just to mention one, IE still can't act as a DL manager (can't resume a download), though DL managers are around for a while. Though maybe copyright issue.] I ran many times into this: "Microsoft is aware of the problem, working on the solution and it will be fixed in the new version.". NetWare 3.12 and 4.11 was right almost out of box, but with patches and SP-s certainly.

>>As I suggested in another thread, advising people to stick with obsolete products, claiming that they are actually supported when they're not, is not an honorable activity.
In short they are not supposed to be supported. But can't we call the ability to download patches for it a bit of a support? And fixing the 4.9 client incompatibility with 3.12 [next day after I reported] is what if not a bit of a support?
http://support.novell.com/cgi-bin/search/searchtid.cgi?/10093299.htm
Not to mention of supporting my favourite topics ideata.ham on older platforms as well. (Thanks Noji!).
So yes, it is not "SUPPORTED". But it is a bit "supported". For example NetWare Access Server and Citrix WinView is not supported at all (you can't even get the patches).
(And an interesting info: DOS project seems to be still alive and kicking even though it is supposed to be dead long ago... http://www.freedos.org/ )

>>Sure, we shouldn't belittle them for working with what they have...
Absolutely agree with the whole section. I just fed up with every thread's second comment is, the "Did you know it is EOL-ed long time ago..." and alike.
For this we could just simply create an autoanswer site, where you select what version you have, and if that is EOL-ed, then no matter what the question is, just tell them that they're idiots. And if it is not EOL-ed, we can tell them that they can get official support, so why bother here. The whole experts-exchange could take only a 2KB php script...

>>Maybe Maques should post a request the EE staff to create a subset of the NetWare TA specific to support of obsolete NetWare products.
Don't think that those 10 accidents per year would "worth it".

>>If I can remember what I did eight years ago to fix a problem with 3.12, I will post that.
Honestly, thanks for that.
But if not, please don't bother posting "EOL" unless someone asks a question like "Is NW3.12 EOL-ed?" or it is "IP over WAP" or alike - especially not, when the "Author" asks you not to offer him to upgrade.

Sincerely, [and living in the past] - Maques

Great response, Maques.
A key element in consulting (and that is what we're doing here, isn't it?) is listening. No one asked the specifics of what this client is doing before jumping to "upgrade to the newest version".
Without getting too deep into specifics, this is an emergency response business that runs under a still supported btrieve-based DOS environment. (Do the new NOS's even support DOS Btrieve?) They use SFT III because they can't have ANY down time. They have a building wide UPS just to maintain the power during the 30 seconds that it takes to switch to the gas powered generators (with gasoline backups in case the gas and power lines are taken out at the same time).
To upgrade any of their systems would mean upgrading many of their systems. We've looked into this and the total cost would be over $350,000. Would you spend that if you didn't have to? Not if the current solution is stable for years to come.
Thanks for all the input. This has been fun.
[Neither living in the past nor forgetting it.]

OK, bad example on the Gigabit ethernet.  The other cr.. stuff that Maques mentioned, only USB is germane - the others are desktop-oriented.  I'm talking about 64-bit extensions, hyperthreading processors, and the like.  All wasted because you're running your server in 386 compatibility mode.

When the bus architecture moves away from PCI, you're further screwed.

Also, I didn't call anyone pigs.  I said they were happy as pigs in slop.  That's a colloquialism describing their contentedness with their status quo.

>>As I suggested in another thread, advising people to stick with obsolete products, claiming that they are actually supported when they're not, is not an honorable activity.
>>In short they are not supposed to be supported. But can't we call the ability to download patches for it a bit of a support?

No.  That's leaving downloads available.  

>>And fixing the 4.9 client incompatibility with 3.12 [next day after I reported] is what if not a bit of a support?

That's support for the current product, the 4.9 client.  Novell is committed to backward-compatibility to a degree.  That's >not< platform support.

>>Without getting too deep into specifics, this is an emergency response business that runs under a still supported btrieve-based DOS environment. (Do the new NOS's even support DOS Btrieve?) They use SFT III because they can't have ANY down time.

AFAIK, yes, Pervasive has provided a degree of backward-compatibility to old Btrieve apps.  Since it's on a NW4.x platform, the likelihood is even greater.  And, NW6.x clustering is, by all accounts, a better solution than SFTIII for failover.

>>And, NW6.x clustering is, by all accounts, a better solution than SFTIII for failover.
$350,000 better?

>>I'm talking about 64-bit extensions, hyperthreading processors, and the like.  All wasted because you're running your server in 386 compatibility mode.
>>When the bus architecture moves away from PCI, you're further screwed.
No. You're not. The architecture moved away from ISA years ago. Did you know you can still buy a server with an ISA slot?
Manufacturers are not going to abandon the huge PCI market for years after they move on.
Be reasonable here. We're not saying that you can use your Netware 3 server forever, only that they have not outlived their usefullness yet.

And if "by all accounts" clustering is a better solution than SFT for failover, can you document these accounts and how they demonstrate that it is "better"?

>>$350,000 better?

No.  However, the $350,000 you speak of isn't for this one 2-server failover application.  It's a wholesale upgrade.  Nobody in their right minds would endeavor a wholesale upgrade just for one application.  If this one 2-server failover application is the whole justification for the upgrade, it's definitely not worth it.

>>If this one 2-server failover application is the whole justification for the upgrade, it's definitely not worth it.
Thank you.

>>No. You're not. The architecture moved away from ISA years ago. Did you know you can still buy a server with an ISA slot?

Niche product.  Can you get one from HP/Compaq?  IBM?  Dell?

Can you get one with an EISA slot?  How about MCA?

I still contend that it's best to stay as current with your software as you do with your hardware, and not to expect old software to work on new hardware as easily as it did on the old hardware, if at all.  Just like you shouldn't try to run the latest software on old hardware and expect it to work well, if at all.

This is from the perspective of a corporate network administrator, not that of a consultant.  A consultant has to do a task.  I have to live with the result.

>>>>No. You're not. The architecture moved away from ISA years ago. Did you know you can still buy a server with an ISA slot?

>>Niche product.  Can you get one from HP/Compaq?  IBM?  Dell?

Dell still had one recently. But that's not the point. The point is that if a new bus architecture were announced today it would be 3-4 years before availability was an issue. You don't have to run out and replace all your stuff because the industry has declared it dead. The important question is, does it still do what it is tasked to do. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

>>I still contend that it's best to stay as current with your software as you do with your hardware, and not to expect old software to work on new hardware as easily as it did on the old hardware, if at all.  Just like you shouldn't try to run the latest software on old hardware and expect it to work well, if at all.

Most network administrators I've dealt with would love to have an employer who thought like you do. Unfortunately, the bill payers tend to lean toward the cheapest solution, not one with the best perceived value.

>>If it aint broke, don't fix it.

In all of the companies I have worked in, over the past 25-odd years (and they have been odd...), the role of IT was to constantly fix what wasn't broke.  Life is change.  "If you don't move, you're dead."

The kicker is, getting the changes done on your terms.

I wouldn't even say cheapest. I'd say "reasonable".

Here's another story (to pass time, until scarpenter104 hears from LSI :-).
We recently sold an Intel server. Since I never cared about whether some hardware is "certified", I was only a bit suprised, when I saw that the Intel s875wp1-e doesn't have driver downloads for NetWare. Of course this was just a glitch, given that an NW only needs a LAN, and a disk driver. It has a built in Intel EtherExpress Pro whatever LAN card, so finding the driver was just 5 more minutes. However, I would've expected to find it somewhere near to the board support links. I sent a mail to Intel, and they said the following:

"Thank you for contacting Intel(R) Technical Support.

Novell* Netware* has not been validated on the Intel(R) Server Board S875WP1-E.
Because of this we do not have best-known methods for supporting this operating system.

You are free to use your server as you wish, but if you choose to use devices or operating systems that are not validated by Intel, you will be responsible for testing, validation and support for these devices and operating systems.

The reason we have not added the LAN drivers its because the operating system has not been tested on the server board.
 
Please see the following website for more compatibility information:
http://support.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/s875wp1-e/sb/CS-007232.htm

Regards, ..."

Note that it is not for 3.x or 4.x, this is for the whole NetWare range. Does this mean, it is not working? No, it works like charm since then. Of course this is an answer, translating: "If you want a NetWare server, buy something else." Too bad, I don't understand [care about] these messages...

I'm really curious how the ANYOS option will work. Let us know.

Let's call a truce here, this is starting to look like a flame thread...

<Arbitrator Hat>
I think that we are all saying the same things, just applying our personal situations to technological needs doesn't make any solution more correct than the other.

We all agree that NetWare 3/4 were superb file and print servers, but beyond these well polished skills, they are lacking. Despite this fact, when serving as a file and perint server, some companies don't feel the need to upgrade. We, as experts, should BOTH stress the advantages of upgrading to a recent OS while being aware of the cost and time savings of sticking with a known (and working) entity. Trying to answer the question first and then stressing the advantages that a newer version could bring to light would probably be most beneficial to the question poser.

If you look at it this way, we're all contributors and everyone is "right".
</Arbitrator Hat>

The experts should be getting harder to find over the next few weeks, so I  want to wish everyone have a great holiday.

Peace,
-Mojo

All that and I forgot to ask if the LSI8XXNW.HAM is working for you, S..

-Mojo

Well spoken, mojo

>>this is starting to look like a flame thread...
I don't know how you define a flame thread but this has been a very respectful discourse. If anyone disrespected me I missed it. (Reminds me of a dialog from The Tick.
Arthur: No offense, Tick.
Tick: None comprehended.)

I had previously tried LSI8XXNW.HAM. It doesn't work, and if you check the notes, it supports just about every chipset they make except the 53c1510. So far, the ANYOS option on the CPQSCSI.HAM is working and if it doesn't melt down any time soon  and I don't hear anything from LSI, that's the solution I'll go with.

One last gem of wisdom (assuming that with age comes wisdom...):

>>"Most network administrators I've dealt with would love to have an employer who thought like you do. Unfortunately, the bill payers tend to lean toward the cheapest solution, not one with the best perceived value."

It is incumbent on IT to present the bill payers with all of the facts, so they can make a good business decision.  If you leave out the upsides and only talk about the downsides, the bill payers will always go for the cheapest solution.   It's up to IT to color their perception of value using all the tools available - cost/benefit analysis, ROI study, TCO study, and the like.  The bill payers didn't get to be bill payers by being stupid.  Armed with enough information, they will often make the decision to go with value over cheap, provided there are funds available - especially if there's a quick ROI.  Sometimes that means they nix the sales manager's pet project and fund your infrastructure upgrade.  Sometimes that means they agree that ongoing maintenance includes keeping yourself at a vendor-supported level, and needs to be budgeted appropriately (which spreads the cost over years instead of all in one shot.)  Sometimes they surprise you by already wanting to do what you recommend.  That makes it a lot easier, yet puts more of an onus on IT to produce results.

If IT fails to make their case. they get to make do with what "ain't broke" until it does, or until the local Microsoft salesman convinces the bill-payers to make a wholesale switch to Microsoft products based on the "value add" that wasn't brought to the table by IT.

Happy holidaze.

>>The bill payers didn't get to be bill payers by being stupid.  Armed with enough information, they will often make the decision to go with value over cheap, provided there are funds available - especially if there's a quick ROI.

You work for a good company. In the small business (5-20 computers) this attitude is not the norm. Of course, "funds available" could be a key.

">>And, NW6.x clustering is, by all accounts, a better solution than SFTIII for failover.
$350,000 better?"

Yes.

"And if "by all accounts" clustering is a better solution than SFT for failover, can you document these accounts and how they demonstrate that it is "better"?"

Be glad too.

1)  NW65 clustering is built into the product.  Without any additional licensing you get two-node cluster out of the box.  If you need to cluster more than two servers, then you have to buy additional licenses - but if you need failover for a single server, then you get it for free with NW65.

additionally, that's a two-node between two servers.  You should be able to use the two-node limitation on any number of groups of servers, ie:  server A and B can be clustered for free and on the same network, server C and D can be clustered.  Now, if you want servers C, D and E clustered together that is where the additional licensing comes to play.  It's when you add a third server to the existing cluster.

2)  NW65 server licenses are free.  This means you can install dozens of servers in your network and it won't cost any more than the cost of hardware - no server licensing.  This is not true with NW3.x or Windows.

3)  NW65 clusters do NOT have to have matching hardware.  This allows you to have a P4 server as your primary and a less expensive PII server as the failover.  This means that when you purchase failover servers, you don't have to make them as powerful - thus less expensive - as the primary server.  This works well if you have a support contract in which you can get spare parts to bring up the primary server quickly.

4)  Novell products such as GroupWise and some others are clustered-enabled so they can take advantage of NW65 clustering - this allows more than file/print to be available in case the primary server fails.

5)  In your case of a mirror drive failure and the DOS partition not being available - that was a fault with the OS at the time, it was obviously using software mirroring (which only mirrors the NetWare partitions).  A simple RAID controller would have solved that problem and they are pretty inexpensive.  NW65 can bypass the DOS partition on boot up.

6)  NW65 allows for more than a single NetWare partition on any drive (be it physical or logical drives in a RAID array).  This makes it easier to expand the NetWare volumes to add additional space without having to resort to third party tools such as Server Magic.

7)  NetWare 6.5 is still supported by Novell and third-party hardware vendors, which means you wouldn't be here in EE having this converstation right now about your hardware incompatibility ;)

oh, good luck finding ISA slots on servers any time soon, the new hardware specs from that consortium Microsoft runs killed ISA support a couple of years ago.  Which means that if you want your hardware to be certified by Microsoft to run under Windows, it can't have an ISA slot (or EISA or MicroChannel for that matter).

So you've made my point for me. PCI slots showed up almost 10 years ago and ISA has now become unavailable. 5 years from now PCI may be unavailable and I may have to start retiring these servers.
Netware 6.5 has everything 4 has and a whole lot more this client doesn't need. Hardly a case for mass upgrade.
I do appreciate your overview of Netware 6.5, though.

>>NetWare 6.5 is still supported by Novell and third-party hardware vendors, which means you wouldn't be here in EE having this converstation right now about your hardware incompatibility.

Yes. I would. Because the Novell drop in market share caused me to stop updating my CNE several years ago and so I get no free support. I find peer support more satisfying in all but the most extreme cases anyway.

OK. I'm sure everyone is getting bored with this now so I'm awarding the points to maques for the ANYOS suggestion that seems to have solved the problem and thank everyone for the spirited conversation.

It was fun, wasn't it?

Oh, by the way - you can have an eDirectory tree with a mix of NW6.x, NW5.x and NW4.x .  DSPoole has proven it can be done.  You don't have to do a mass-upgrade to NetWare 6.5.  If your hardware can't handle it, don't upgrade that server right away... just make sure the DS versions are compatible and don't leave any R/W replicas on NW4.x.

The hardware you're using for this SFTIII pair CAN handle it, just to make the point...

Happy holidaze.   Glad you got it working...

"5 years from now PCI may be unavailable and I may have to start retiring these servers."

Unlikely - there are many variations of PCI (PCI-X for instance) that it won't go into oblivion anytime soon, at least not within 5 years...

"Netware 6.5 has everything 4 has and a whole lot more this client doesn't need. Hardly a case for mass upgrade."

The biggest case, I think, is the fact that additional server licenses are free ;)

"Because the Novell drop in market share caused me to stop updating my CNE several years ago and so I get no free support."

http://support.novell.com - includes an online knowledgebase and peer-based support thru several Novell forums.

also, the CPQ .HAM driver probably would have worked right out of the box ;)

Post mortum comment, LSI finally responded:

Sir,
While this is an LSI chip, drivers are provided by HP.  You should be contacting HP for software / driver support.  LSI did not create, nor does LSI  maintain or support drivers for this device.  

Thank you,
LSI Support-01
LSI Logic - Field Support Technician
support@lsil.com
http://www.lsilogic.com/downloads/selectDownload.do
Technical Support 678-728-1250

So the only solution is using the ANYOS parameter on the CPQSCSI.HAM and any others that reject SFT III.