I already pointed this out :-). Its not only write caching (dev null doesnt
write at all)
I think its read caching (read ahead)
Cheers
Markus
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, blizbor wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andre Tomt wrote:
> >>
> >> The fastest ATA drives out that are n
Miles writes:
> Is this the kind of information required to build an application
> like Partition Magic? It sure would be nice to have a native
> version of Partition Magic or an Open Source work-alike.
> Is anyone aware of a project to implement such an Open Source
> alternative?
The GNU parted
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 02:08:55AM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> like Partition Magic? It sure would be nice to have a native
> version of Partition Magic or an Open Source work-alike.
> Is anyone aware of a project to implement such an Open Source
> alternative?
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/parted
--
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, blizbor wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andre Tomt wrote:
>>
>> The fastest ATA drives out that are not public yet are in 39-42mB/s.
>> Also SCSI can not sustain rates much better than maybe 60mB/s.
>
>Andre, how are you benchmarking drives ?
>
>In context you wrote, I've got r
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 02:08:55AM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
>
>
> > They may be a way to test and create drive profiles that are stored and
> > reloaded to the kernel that will add the missing supercharge on Andrea's
> > elevator. Basically creating a physical LBA sect
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Recall that I told you that there is a physical limit of getting stuff off
> the drives. The platter density is to low and the rpm's are to slow to
> get there yet. Remember it took second genration ATA66 drives to fill
> the ATA33 bandwidth.
Yes, y
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andre Tomt wrote:
> Using a newer ATA66 IBM 7200rpm drive, on a VIA chipset, I can sustain
> 24-25mB/s in both UDMA33 and ATA66 mode. This is a Athlon Asus
This okay, the drive has a physical data IO limit for sustained, not
burst. Thus getting 24-25mB/s in both UDMA33/ATA66
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> You are doing Ultra-66 speeds my friend.
> The fastest ATA drives out that are not public yet are in 39-42mB/s.
> Also SCSI can not sustain rates much better than maybe 60mB/s.
Actually, my other IBM UDMA33 drive did 20mB/s on a 600mB IDE to SCSI
trans
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> They may be a way to test and create drive profiles that are stored and
> reloaded to the kernel that will add the missing supercharge on Andrea's
> elevator. Basically creating a physical LBA sector profile.
>
> Trust that this will be painful to create because this is
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, blizbor wrote:
> Andre, how are you benchmarking drives ?
Direct access below the driver without any file-system getting in the way.
No reorder of requests because of linear seeks.
These are kernel level tests because timers get set upon the execution of
the command block an
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andre Tomt wrote:
>
> The fastest ATA drives out that are not public yet are in 39-42mB/s.
> Also SCSI can not sustain rates much better than maybe 60mB/s.
Andre, how are you benchmarking drives ?
In context you wrote, I've got rather curious result
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andre Tomt wrote:
> > patches is ok, but I just want to know that I'm going to get more
> > than 10M/s out of the drives, and not fry them. Those are my
It will not fry your drives, if your drives got fried, I want to know.
I want serial numbers and the maker and when/where
On Sat, 7 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> After the problems I experienced though, I wondered just how many
> problems would I be in for if I bought a brand new Athlon 800
> system? Would it run like a P100 due to lack of Linux hardware
> support? After reading stuff on lkml here, I'm startin
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:10:31PM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > kernel proper and working. If it *IS* ready now, what sort of
> > Athlon hardware is recommended for a developmental machine?
>
> I HIGHLY recommend duron/thunderbird, KT133, PC133, UDMA machines;
> they work very well with modern (2
> kernel proper and working. If it *IS* ready now, what sort of
> Athlon hardware is recommended for a developmental machine?
I HIGHLY recommend duron/thunderbird, KT133, PC133, UDMA machines;
they work very well with modern (2.4) kernels. K6-2 machines are
not anywhere close to the same perfo
I've been considering a possible upgrade now for quite a while,
but wanted to wait until just the right time to do so. The
purpose of an upgrade of course to get more performance out of
the system.
I got a freebie loaner upgrade recently from a K6-200 to a
K62-350. I had to clock the chip to 30
16 matches
Mail list logo
