Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bought a new
hd, via sata in my case within past year or newer computer in past year,
are we using t
On 2010/03/10 15:22 (GMT-0600) Mike Chambers composed:
> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> for this or getting ready, or already using it?
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361156,0
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:22:13PM -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bought a new
> hd, via sata in
Mike Chambers wrote:
> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bought a new
> hd, via sata in my case within past year or newer computer
On 03/10/2010 04:22 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bought a new
> hd, via sata in my case within pas
On 03/10/2010 04:30 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 15:22 (GMT-0600) Mike Chambers composed:
>
>
>> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
>> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
>> for this or getting ready, or already usin
On 2010/03/10 17:09 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> The change is for the benefit of manufacturers, not users. Readiness is only
>> spotty. The discussion has been extensive and ongoing on the linux-ide
>> mailing list.
> Users do benefit as well - more capacity per plat
Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 17:09 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
>
>> Felix Miata wrote:
>
>>> The change is for the benefit of manufacturers, not users. Readiness is only
>>> spotty. The discussion has been extensive and ongoing on the linux-ide
>>> mailing list.
>
>> Users do benefit
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:28 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 17:09 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
>
> > Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> The change is for the benefit of manufacturers, not users. Readiness is
> >> only
> >> spotty. The discussion has been extensive and ongoing on the linux-i
On 03/10/2010 05:28 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 17:09 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
>
>> Felix Miata wrote:
>
>>> The change is for the benefit of manufacturers, not users. Readiness is only
>>> spotty. The discussion has been extensive and ongoing on the linux-ide
>>> mailing list.
On 03/10/2010 05:38 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 05:28 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
>
>> On 2010/03/10 17:09 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
>>
>>
>>> Felix Miata wrote:
>>>
>>
The change is for the benefit of manufacturers, not users. Readiness is
only
On 2010/03/10 20:19 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>> Note also that the access time will be slightly faster.
As if an average normal person could tell.
> And power consumption will go down as you won't need as many platters :-)
Not materially for those whose needs are a
On 03/10/2010 08:33 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 20:19 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
>
>
>> Peter Jones wrote:
>>
>
>>> Note also that the access time will be slightly faster.
>>>
> As if an average normal person could tell.
>
>
>> And power consumption will g
> MultiGHz, Multicore CPUs consume magnitudes more power than HDs.
Not always. A typical 3.5" harddrive consumes about (max):
0.65A * 5V = 3.25W
0.50A * 12V = 6.00W
which totals 9.25 Watts, and less when not transferring data.
I am composing this message on a system with a 2.5GHz, tw
On 2010/03/10 19:11 (GMT-0800) John Reiser composed:
>> MultiGHz, Multicore CPUs consume magnitudes more power than HDs.
> Not always. A typical 3.5" harddrive consumes about (max):
> 0.65A * 5V = 3.25W
> 0.50A * 12V = 6.00W
> which totals 9.25 Watts, and less when not transferring
Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 19:11 (GMT-0800) John Reiser composed:
>
>>> MultiGHz, Multicore CPUs consume magnitudes more power than HDs.
>
>> Not always. A typical 3.5" harddrive consumes about (max):
>> 0.65A * 5V = 3.25W
>> 0.50A * 12V = 6.00W
>> which totals 9.25 Watts, a
On 2010/03/10 22:41 (GMT-0600) Eric Sandeen composed:
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> Sounds to me like the HD manufacturers want to make 512 go the way of PATA,
>> accelerating obsolescence to drive up profitability of the whole computer
>> hardware industry. People shouldn't have to buy whole new syste
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 19:11 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> > MultiGHz, Multicore CPUs consume magnitudes more power than HDs.
>
> Not always. A typical 3.5" harddrive consumes about (max):
> 0.65A * 5V = 3.25W
> 0.50A * 12V = 6.00W
> which totals 9.25 Watts, and less when not transferri
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 08:33:16PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 20:19 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
> > And power consumption will go down as you won't need as many platters :-)
>
> Not materially for those whose needs are already down to less than one
> platter. MultiGHz, Multico
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 05:28:14PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> benefits. Most users don't even need 1/10 of .2TiB, much less the 2TiB at
Famous last words!
--
Matthew Miller
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Computing & Information Technology
Harvard Sc
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 00:19 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> Have you tried to buy a replacement PATA disk lately, particularly one no
> larger than the 2^28 ATA-5 addressing limit? Buying a replacement 20G HD, or
> one compatible with it even if 10X or more the storage size actually needed,
> has bec
On 2010/03/11 12:10 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed:
> You know you can buy a PCI SATA controller card for about $10 in any PC
> junk store, right?
PC BIOS treat those as SCSI cards, which do not play nice with boot device
order control by the PC BIOS, if not OS device names. Even when neithe
ons 2010-03-10 klockan 15:57 -0600 skrev Eric Sandeen:
> There has been a lot of work upstream on 4k sector support, and in general
> yes, we are ready.
Problems can probably be expected in case the drive does not report its
real block size to the software, though, like my WD15EARS (I think) or
V
Alexander Boström wrote:
> ons 2010-03-10 klockan 15:57 -0600 skrev Eric Sandeen:
>
>> There has been a lot of work upstream on 4k sector support, and in general
>> yes, we are ready.
>
> Problems can probably be expected in case the drive does not report its
> real block size to the software, th
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/11 12:10 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed:
>
>> You know you can buy a PCI SATA controller card for about $10 in any PC
>> junk store, right?
>
> PC BIOS treat those as SCSI cards, which do not play nice with boot device
> order
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:19:37AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> Have you tried to buy a replacement PATA disk lately, particularly one no
> larger than the 2^28 ATA-5 addressing limit?
No. I haven't tried buying a replacement 386 lately, either.
> The bother is that it looks like HD makers wi
On 2010/03/10 21:28 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
> For anyone serious about storage (performance, reliability and power
> consumption) this will be a positive step.
Not everyone. Users of larger numbers of small files and small numbers of
large files already lose a heap of space to slack eve
On 2010/03/11 23:23 (GMT+0100) drago01 composed:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
>> On 2010/03/11 12:10 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed:
>>> You know you can buy a PCI SATA controller card for about $10 in any PC
>>> junk store, right?
>> PC BIOS treat those as SCSI
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> > What exactly are you trying to say?
>
> > "Do not support newer hardware to give vendors a reaons to sell old
> > hardware" ?
>
> Not even. Just don't use new technology as excuse to accelerate abandonment
> of old hardware. New stuff do
On 03/13/2010 12:45 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 21:28 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
>
>
>> For anyone serious about storage (performance, reliability and power
>> consumption) this will be a positive step.
>>
> Not everyone. Users of larger numbers of small files and small n
On 03/13/2010 08:17 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 03/13/2010 12:45 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
>
>> On 2010/03/10 21:28 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
>>
>>
>>
>>> For anyone serious about storage (performance, reliability and power
>>> consumption) this will be a positive step.
>>>
>>>
Once upon a time, Felix Miata said:
> Not even. Just don't use new technology as excuse to accelerate abandonment
> of old hardware. New stuff does not instantly convert old stuff into bad
> stuff. We don't force old BMWs into salvage yards just because new ones use
> different sized tires. Tire m
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:57:14PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Mike Chambers wrote:
> > Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> > just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> > for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bou
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 05:12:26PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> for a new partition. Shouldn't it then default to sector 16, which is
I mean sector 8 here. So I just gave an example why the tools should do
the math for me. ;-)
Regards
Till
pgp1RMnbl3DjQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel ma
On 03/18/2010 11:12 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> I just bought a WD20EARS and tested on F12. fdisk has an option to set
> the sector size to 4096 byte, but it will still use sector 63 by default
> for a new partition. Shouldn't it then default to sector 16, which is
> sector 64 with 512 byte sector size?
On 3/18/2010 9:47 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
> The default pseudo-geometry will still be 63 sectors/track unless you
> change it, and by default a partition's start-of-data is forced to the
> beginning of a track. Making the sectors larger doesn't change that.
>
Warning: this question is asked
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:53:15PM +0200, shmuel siegel wrote:
> On 3/18/2010 9:47 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
> > The default pseudo-geometry will still be 63 sectors/track unless you
> > change it, and by default a partition's start-of-data is forced to the
> > beginning of a track. Making the sec
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:32:48PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> me bdisk, which uses modern GPT partition tables, that do not care about
^
*sigh* This is meant to be gdisk.
Regards
Till
pgp0Dg1isND4s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
On 03/18/2010 04:53 PM, shmuel siegel wrote:
> On 3/18/2010 9:47 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>> The default pseudo-geometry will still be 63 sectors/track unless you
>> change it, and by default a partition's start-of-data is forced to the
>> beginning of a track. Making the sectors larger doesn't c
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:21:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Alexander Boström wrote:
> > ons 2010-03-10 klockan 15:57 -0600 skrev Eric Sandeen:
> >
> >> There has been a lot of work upstream on 4k sector support, and in general
> >> yes, we are ready.
> >
> > Problems can probably be expected
On 03/19/2010 08:08 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:21:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Alexander Boström wrote:
>>> ons 2010-03-10 klockan 15:57 -0600 skrev Eric Sandeen:
>>>
There has been a lot of work upstream on 4k sector support, and in general
yes, we are ready.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 08:08 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:21:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Alexander Boström wrote:
> >>> ons 2010-03-10 klockan 15:57 -0600 skrev Eric Sandeen:
> >>>
> There has been a lot of w
On 03/19/2010 09:39 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 03/19/2010 08:08 AM, Till Maas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:21:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Alexander Boström wrote:
> ons 2010-03-10 klockan 15:57 -0600 skrev Eric San
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:56:10AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> We are currently working to verify that storage devices work properly &
> report
> the information that they want us to use (doing this with several storage
> providers and have also raised this with EMC/VMware).
> If we see real w
On 03/19/2010 10:04 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:56:10AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
>> We are currently working to verify that storage devices work properly&
>> report
>> the information that they want us to use (doing this with several storage
>> providers and have also rai
On 03/19/2010 10:04 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:56:10AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
>> We are currently working to verify that storage devices work properly&
>> report
>> the information that they want us to use (doing this with several storage
>> providers and have also rai
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:25:38AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> I should have asked - do you have the details captured in bugzilla? If so,
> that
> will be useful to help kick off the discussion with them.
It seemed to be common knowledge already, but I just created a bug
report:
https://bugzill
47 matches
Mail list logo
