On Du, 16 ian 11, 18:48:17, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Now, when will stable release have a 2.6.37 kernel?
Squeeze will release with 2.6.32. However, 2.6.37 is already available
in experimental and it (or a higher version) will eventually reach
testing and from there squeeze-backports. I would
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:48:17 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
(...)
Now, when will stable release have a 2.6.37 kernel? And are all those
changes non-free -- so to be included in supported versions of
Debian?
AFAIK, Gparted has support for 4,096 bytes sector size hdd since moths...
But why
Hi,
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Du, 16 ian 11, 18:48:17, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Now, when will stable release have a 2.6.37 kernel?
Squeeze will release with 2.6.32. However, 2.6.37 is already available
in experimental and it (or a higher version) will eventually reach
testing and from there
On Du, 16 ian 11, 22:55:13, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
What I mean is, the kernel changes to add broadcom and other
firmware ... will those parts be non-free or will they remain as
extras required as they are now.
I did an install using squeeze rc1 and without using media with
non-free
Read the ATA and SCSI specifications. Or ask on either mailing list.
In short, the drive presents its LBA addressing based on 512B sectors.
The kernel can't choose to ignore that--it's stuck with it. Since the
drive is presenting LBA based on 512B sectors, there is no way the
kernel can
Hi,
Stefan Monnier wrote:
Read the ATA and SCSI specifications. Or ask on either mailing list.
In short, the drive presents its LBA addressing based on 512B sectors.
The kernel can't choose to ignore that--it's stuck with it. Since the
drive is presenting LBA based on 512B sectors, there is
Stefan Monnier put forth on 1/11/2011 10:28 PM:
Isn't it rather than the kernel chooses to only use the logical
sector size? Where/when does the drive report 512B physical
sector sizes?
Read the ATA and SCSI specifications. Or ask on either mailing list. In short,
the drive presents its
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/12/2011 12:12 PM:
The
number of bits of ECC required per 4KB sector is significantly less than that
occupied by the 4 ECC segments of four 512 byte sectors. This is the ONLY
This should read 8^ not 4.
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
teddi...@tmo.blackberry.net:
I think what we mainly should take from all this is Western Digital
sucks and we should never buy their crap...
Yeah, we should rush out and buy Samsung drives with their faulty
firmware which forgets write operations if one sends the wrong IDE
command at the
teddi...@tmo.blackberry.net put forth on 1/10/2011 11:29 PM:
I think what we mainly should take from all this is Western Digital sucks and
we should never buy their crap...
I know there are some who will disagree with this, so no flames needed...
Not a flame at all here. Totally agree
Robert Holtzman put forth on 1/11/2011 1:44 AM:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 04:44:13AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Interesting advice Bob. Practice it.
I did. Read your post again, especially the part that says This is
because of your liberal political leanings
Yes. I called black black.
Jochen Schulz put forth on 1/11/2011 3:19 AM:
And those pesky 4k blocks will never take hold. 512 bytes were a good
idea in the 1950s, so what's wrong with it now!?
4KB blocks are great. Too bad these drives report 512B blocks to the kernel,
which is what causes the problem. Advanced format
Stan Hoeppner:
Jochen Schulz put forth on 1/11/2011 3:19 AM:
And those pesky 4k blocks will never take hold. 512 bytes were a good
idea in the 1950s, so what's wrong with it now!?
4KB blocks are great. Too bad these drives report 512B blocks to the kernel,
which is what causes the
Jochen Schulz put forth on 1/11/2011 12:58 PM:
Stan Hoeppner:
Jochen Schulz put forth on 1/11/2011 3:19 AM:
And those pesky 4k blocks will never take hold. 512 bytes were a good
idea in the 1950s, so what's wrong with it now!?
4KB blocks are great. Too bad these drives report 512B blocks
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:47:01AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Robert Holtzman put forth on 1/11/2011 1:44 AM:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 04:44:13AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Interesting advice Bob. Practice it.
I did. Read your post again, especially the part that says This is
Robert Holtzman put forth on 1/11/2011 5:45 PM:
I said this was the end
of the OT wrangling and I meant it.
If that's the case, then why did you respond again? And why are you responding
yet again, to this?
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
# hdparm -I /dev/sdc | grep Sector size
Logical Sector size: 512 bytes
Physical Sector size: 4096 bytes
This is reported by the drive to hdparm. Only the 512 is used by the
kernel. It has no knowledge of the 4KB physical block size and can't
use it
Robert Holtzman put forth on 1/9/2011 7:00 PM:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 03:37:41PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
This is because of your liberal political leanings, which have no place
here. This is a technical discussion list, so keep it technical.
I was with you right up until that last
I think what we mainly should take from all this is Western Digital sucks and
we should never buy their crap...
I know there are some who will disagree with this, so no flames needed...
TeddyB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 04:44:13AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Robert Holtzman put forth on 1/9/2011 7:00 PM:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 03:37:41PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
This is because of your liberal political leanings, which have no place
here. This is a technical discussion list,
On 2011-01-09 08:02:05 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
If one is so power consumption conscious to be suckered into a Green
(EARS) drive, then one needs to realize the CPU dissipates about 10
times the wattage/heat of a hard drive. Thus, concentrate your power
saving efforts elsewhere than the
Phil Requirements put forth on 1/9/2011 12:48 PM:
On 2011-01-09 08:02:05 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
If one is so power consumption conscious to be suckered into a Green
(EARS) drive, then one needs to realize the CPU dissipates about 10
times the wattage/heat of a hard drive. Thus,
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 03:37:41PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
This is because of your liberal political leanings, which have no place
here. This is a technical discussion list, so keep it technical.
I was with you right up until that last sentence. You people always wind
up framing every
On Sunday 09 January 2011 21:37:41 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'm sure your grandmother has told you at least once, Save your
dollars and the pennies take care of themselves. Save thing. It was
good advice when she gave it to you, and it's good advice today.
Here in the UK we have a saying which
24 matches
Mail list logo
