On Tuesday 22 May 2001 12:56, Todd Flinders wrote:
> Yes, I'm especially interested in Civileme's tool he's
> working on to install a Maxtor controller card. I
> wonder if I should get that for RAID 0 instead of the
> 3ware. 3ware has good support, but only goes up to
> ATA 66.
>
> How important is ATA 100 anyway for RAID 0??? Should
> I even be concerned about that. I'm think that
> because I have 2 ATA 100 HDs (IBMs), that it would be
> a waste to get the 66 controller. Am I just being
> foolish? Is the 66 fine?
>
My tests on ATA/66 and ATA/100 don't give you much to choose.
the hdparm 64M read test seems to peak at slightly under 32 Mb/s for 66 and
might go as high as 35Mb/s for ATA100. Both basically transfer data faster
than it can spin onto or off the disk itself. My disk optimizer, which is
based on a database, searches for a saddle-point where speed retuns diminish
and noise immunity drops. The big surprise is that over half the ATA/100
setups I have tested end up with an ATA/66 setting from the optimizer, and
most of those actually run faster at 66 (no repeats for channel noise
problems).
You actually do not need my tool to install using the cheap Maxtor card--it
just eliminates a complicated series of steps that are a pain in the ass for
experts and probably smoke and mirrors for newbies.
Civileme
> --- Terry C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please let us know as soon as you have the disk
> > optimizer available for testing, I'll be happy to
> > test
> > it for you. I am using and IBM 7200 RPM ATA 100 hard
> > drive and I'm not getting the performance I should
> > from it yet.
> >
> > TC
> >
> > --- Civileme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 May 2001 08:01, Irv wrote:
> > > > From: Pelle Poluha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > Subject: [newbie] Performance issues with
> >
> > Mandrake
> >
> > > 8
> > >
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm working as a developer and needs a stable
> > >
> > > environment to develop and
> > >
> > > > > test deployments in. So I want to switch from
> > >
> > > Windows. I need stability
> > >
> > > > but
> > > >
> > > > > at the same time I want speed and a practical
> >
> > UI
> >
> > > (read GUI). I need a
> > >
> > > > smooth
> > > >
> > > > > file manager, easy access to OS, an editor,
> > >
> > > browser, email client (the
> > >
> > > > > usual I guess) and a C++ & Java IDE.
> > > >
> > > > That you'll have - but not with KDE 2, I'm
> > >
> > > afraid.
> > >
> > > > Even people with 1ghz / 256 mb machines have
> > >
> > > reported slowness.
> > >
> > > > My 300mhz / 128 meg pc is too slow to be usable,
> > >
> > > but not quite as
> > >
> > > > slow as you report - usually KDE takes 30-40
> > >
> > > seconds, and new apps
> > >
> > > > or windows 10 - 20 seconds.
> > > >
> > > > The good news is that KDE 1.x works just fine.
> >
> > Try
> >
> > > an older version of
> > >
> > > > Mandrake or SuSE or RedHat. They're all plenty
> > >
> > > fast.
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Irv
> > > >
> > > > > I opted for Mandrake because I've heard a lot
> >
> > of
> >
> > > good things about it. So
> > >
> > > > I
> > > >
> > > > > downloaded 8.0 last week and eagerly installed
> > >
> > > it on my AMD K333 machine
> > >
> > > > (96
> > > >
> > > > > mb, Riva TNT) on a 2 gig partition. As I've
> > >
> > > followed the development of
> > >
> > > > KDE
> > > >
> > > > > with great interest, I chose KDE as default
> > >
> > > windows manager (and it has
> > >
> > > > > KDevelop).
> > > > >
> > > > > But it's really slow. Just loading Mandrake
> > >
> > > takes like 3-4 minutes. Some
> > >
> > > > of
> > > >
> > > > > it, I can understand. In the installation
> > >
> > > process, I included lots of
> > >
> > > > > apps and some of them gets loaded when
> >
> > Mandrake
> >
> > > starts (like MySql and
> > >
> > > > postgres,
> > > >
> > > > > probably some more servers). But that surely
> > >
> > > doesn't account for the
> > >
> > > > > immensly slow loading of the OS.
> > > > >
> > > > > And then I start KDE... It takes another 2-3
> > >
> > > minutes. And using it is
> > >
> > > > awful.
> > > >
> > > > > Loading a simple app might take 10-20 secs and
> > >
> > > everything just crawls. I
> > >
> > > > > just can't use it. I tried Window Maker
> >
> > instead
> >
> > > and it worked better. But
> > >
> > > > I
> > > >
> > > > > don't want to drop KDE just yet. There must be
> > >
> > > something wrong with the
> > >
> > > > > configuration. I also tried Gnome but it
> >
> > started
> >
> > > to look for a trash
> > >
> > > > folder
> > > >
> > > > > which it didn't find. Although I canceled that
> > >
> > > search, it seemed like it
> > >
> > > > > continued to search for the folder because the
> > >
> > > hd were working really
> > >
> > > > > hard all the time and everything worked even
> > >
> > > slower than in KDE.
> > >
> > > > > There are also some more strange things
> > >
> > > happening:
> > > > > - when I leave the windows manager and come to
> > >
> > > the 'console', I get a
> > >
> > > > > line typed on the screen all the time:
> >
> > "Sending
> >
> > > ICMP signal...failed" (or
> > >
> > > > > something like that). It effectively stops me
> > >
> > > from working in console
> > >
> > > > mode.
> > > >
> > > > > - it seems like I've lost my internet
> > >
> > > connection. During installation, I
> > >
> > > > > selected 'DHCP-server' when asked for IP
> > >
> > > address. And I managed to do
> > >
> > > > > some surfing using Konqueror. But after
> > >
> > > installing Gnome and Window
> > >
> > > > > Maker, something must have happened to the
> > >
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > > > - shutting down or restaring the OS always
> >
> > hangs
> >
> > > the machine.
> > >
> > > > > - when I start Windows instead, using the boot
> > >
> > > manager, the initial
> > >
> > > > loading
> > > >
> > > > > process seems to be slower now than before.
> >
> > It's
> >
> > > not a big deal because
> > >
> > > > > it works fine when Windows is loaded but it
> > >
> > > might give a clue to why the
> > >
> > > > system
> > > >
> > > > > is so slow when I start Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please advice!
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Pelle Poluha
> > > > > Sweden
> > >
> > > Grrrr!
> > >
> > > The speed you perceive will be related to the
> > > performance of your HDDs more
> > > than any other single factor. I am doing fine
> >
> > with
> >
> > > a Celeron 366 and a
> > > well-tuned disk drive which turns up a read rate
> >
> > of
> >
> > > 31.89Mb/s
> > >
> > > I should have a disk optimizer out next week for
> > > testing. It will probably
> > > make a world of difference.
> > >
> > > Civileme
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great
> > prices
> > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
