On 9/26/05, Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You might try sdparm. It doesn't give very much output on my SATA
> drive, but it's supposed to give more on others.
>
> Daniel
I hadn't heard of this one. Thanks.
It actually gives lots of output on my system. Use the --all option.
Ho
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 08:45 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Only problem is these are SATA drives and they don't tell me much
> compared to EIDE drives when using hdparm. Also their error messages
> running hdparm are a bit of a concern, although typical from what I've
> read.
>
> lightning ~ # hdparm
On 9/26/05, Volker Armin Hemmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 26 September 2005 16:59, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> > "Any disk activity seems to be the main cause of xruns on this machine."
> >
> >If I get xruns (a failure mode of Jack-Audio-Connection-Kit running
> > on this hardware) the
On Monday 26 September 2005 16:59, Mark Knecht wrote:
> "Any disk activity seems to be the main cause of xruns on this machine."
>
>If I get xruns (a failure mode of Jack-Audio-Connection-Kit running
> on this hardware) then the machine is useless doing the sort of Linux
> audio work I want to
On 9/26/05, Matt Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> > So, to check how this hardware platform works in a 32-bit mode I
> >guess I need to do a complete second install on a separate part of the
> >hard drive as an Athlon. That's a big job that I'm not anxious to do.
> >
>
Mark Knecht wrote:
So, to check how this hardware platform works in a 32-bit mode I
guess I need to do a complete second install on a separate part of the
hard drive as an Athlon. That's a big job that I'm not anxious to do.
Cheers,
Mark
If you're just trying to compare the performance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On 9/25/05, John Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday 25 September 2005 19:45, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>>However, I am completely unable to figure out for myself
>>>if I can run a 32-bit kernel when everything else - glib
On 9/25/05, John Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 25 September 2005 19:45, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > However, I am completely unable to figure out for myself
> > if I can run a 32-bit kernel when everything else - glibc, xrog-x11,
> > qt, gnome, apps, etc., have been compiled as 64-bit cap
On Sunday 25 September 2005 20:47, John C. Shimek wrote:
> You do a straight 32bit install on your amd64.
That's beside the point. His question was whether he could just use a 32-bit
kernel with a 64-bit userland (i.e. not having to recompile everything), the
answer to which is no.
> I don't kn
On Sunday 25 September 2005 19:45, Mark Knecht wrote:
> However, I am completely unable to figure out for myself
> if I can run a 32-bit kernel when everything else - glibc, xrog-x11,
> qt, gnome, apps, etc., have been compiled as 64-bit capable.
No. The kernel would boot, but it would panic when
You do a straight 32bit install on your amd64. The amd64 is 32bit
capable. I don't know whether to call your precessor an athlon or maybe
a generic x86 processor. It is the same as running Windows 2000/XP on
this processor. The OS thinks it has a 32bit CPU. Only you are limited
to 32bit lim
Hi,
I'm very unclear about this idea. I've built my new AMD64 machine
using the Gentoo 64-bit setup. The kernel I emerge uses the ~amd64 to
I think I get a full 64-bit kernel. (Please excuse me on this issue.
I'm a bit of a "follow instructions, not necessarily understand the
whole thing" kind o
12 matches
Mail list logo
