Bill Davidsen wrote:
Andreas Baer wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have
over-snipped this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Andreas Baer wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have
over-snipped this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
There clearly is a
Andreas Baer wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have
over-snipped this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
There clearly is a
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Andreas Baer wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have
over-snipped this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have over-snipped
this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
There clearly is a problem on the system installed
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:38:25PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> It's even more complex than that as far as I know, you also have the
> issue of seek times - tracks near the middle of the platter will be
> nearer the head more often (on average) then tracks at the edge.
>
> For people who like
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have over-snipped
this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
There clearly is a problem on the system installed on this machine.
You
On 7/25/05, Erik Mouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:51:49PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
> >
> > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
> > >>Here I have
> > >>
> > >>/dev/hda: 26.91 MB/sec
> > >>/dev/hda1:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:12:58PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
> Erik Mouw wrote:
> >Easy: Drives don't have the same speed on all tracks. The platters are
> >built-up from zones with different recording densities: zones near the
> >center of the platters have a lower recording density and hence a
Erik Mouw wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:51:49PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Here I have
/dev/hda: 26.91 MB/sec
/dev/hda1: 26.90 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
/dev/hda7: 17.89 MB/sec
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:51:49PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
>
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
> >>Here I have
> >>
> >>/dev/hda: 26.91 MB/sec
> >>/dev/hda1: 26.90 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
> >>/dev/hda7: 17.89
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:51:49 +0200, Andreas Baer said:
> > a reason for what ? the fact that the notebook performs faster than the
> > desktop while slower on I/O ?
>
> No, a reason why the partition with Linux (ReiserFS or Ext3) is always slower
> than the Windows partition?
My first guess is
On 7/25/05, Andreas Baer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Here I have
> >>
> >> /dev/hda: 26.91 MB/sec
> >> /dev/hda1: 26.90 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
> >> /dev/hda7: 17.89 MB/sec(Linux EXT3)
> >>
> >>Could you give me a reason how this is possible?
> >
> >
> > a
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
(...)
I have (S-ATA-150 Disk 80GB)
/dev/sda: 50.59 MB/sec
/dev/sda1: 50.62 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
/dev/sda6: 41.63 MB/sec(Linux ReiserFS)
On the Notebook I have at most an
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
(...)
> I have (S-ATA-150 Disk 80GB)
>
> /dev/sda: 50.59 MB/sec
> /dev/sda1: 50.62 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
> /dev/sda6: 41.63 MB/sec(Linux ReiserFS)
>
> On the Notebook I have at most an ATA-100 Disk
Andreas Baer wrote:
[...]
Vmstat for Notebook P4 3.0 GHz 512 MB RAM:
procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io --system--
cpu
r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy
id wa
1 0 0 179620 14812 228832003321 557 184
Hi,
Thanks for reply.
Sorry, but I've never done any vmstat operation before so next time I'll send
the output in the first mail :)
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 02:50:05AM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Hi everyone,
First I want to say sorry for this BIG post, but it
Hi,
Thanks for reply.
Sorry, but I've never done any vmstat operation before so next time I'll send
the output in the first mail :)
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 02:50:05AM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Hi everyone,
First I want to say sorry for this BIG post, but it
Andreas Baer wrote:
[...]
Vmstat for Notebook P4 3.0 GHz 512 MB RAM:
procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io --system--
cpu
r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy
id wa
1 0 0 179620 14812 228832003321 557 184
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
(...)
I have (S-ATA-150 Disk 80GB)
/dev/sda: 50.59 MB/sec
/dev/sda1: 50.62 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
/dev/sda6: 41.63 MB/sec(Linux ReiserFS)
On the Notebook I have at most an ATA-100 Disk with
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
(...)
I have (S-ATA-150 Disk 80GB)
/dev/sda: 50.59 MB/sec
/dev/sda1: 50.62 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
/dev/sda6: 41.63 MB/sec(Linux ReiserFS)
On the Notebook I have at most an
On 7/25/05, Andreas Baer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here I have
/dev/hda: 26.91 MB/sec
/dev/hda1: 26.90 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
/dev/hda7: 17.89 MB/sec(Linux EXT3)
Could you give me a reason how this is possible?
a reason for what ? the fact that
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:51:49 +0200, Andreas Baer said:
a reason for what ? the fact that the notebook performs faster than the
desktop while slower on I/O ?
No, a reason why the partition with Linux (ReiserFS or Ext3) is always slower
than the Windows partition?
My first guess is that
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:51:49PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Here I have
/dev/hda: 26.91 MB/sec
/dev/hda1: 26.90 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
/dev/hda7: 17.89 MB/sec(Linux EXT3)
Erik Mouw wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:51:49PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Here I have
/dev/hda: 26.91 MB/sec
/dev/hda1: 26.90 MB/sec(Windows FAT32)
/dev/hda7: 17.89 MB/sec
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:12:58PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Erik Mouw wrote:
Easy: Drives don't have the same speed on all tracks. The platters are
built-up from zones with different recording densities: zones near the
center of the platters have a lower recording density and hence a lower
On 7/25/05, Erik Mouw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:51:49PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Here I have
/dev/hda: 26.91 MB/sec
/dev/hda1: 26.90 MB/sec(Windows
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have over-snipped
this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
There clearly is a problem on the system installed on this machine.
You
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:38:25PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
It's even more complex than that as far as I know, you also have the
issue of seek times - tracks near the middle of the platter will be
nearer the head more often (on average) then tracks at the edge.
For people who like visuals,
Bill Davidsen wrote:
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have over-snipped
this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
There clearly is a problem on the system installed
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 02:50:05AM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> First I want to say sorry for this BIG post, but it seems that I have no
> other chance. :)
It's not big enough, you did not explain us what your database does nor
how it does work, what type of resource it
Hi everyone,
First I want to say sorry for this BIG post, but it seems that I have no
other chance. :)
I have a Asus P4C800-DX with a P4 2,4 GHz 512 KB L2 Cache "Northwood"
Processor (lowest Processor that supports HyperThreading) and 1GB DDR400
RAM. I'm also running S-ATA disks with about
Hi everyone,
First I want to say sorry for this BIG post, but it seems that I have no
other chance. :)
I have a Asus P4C800-DX with a P4 2,4 GHz 512 KB L2 Cache Northwood
Processor (lowest Processor that supports HyperThreading) and 1GB DDR400
RAM. I'm also running S-ATA disks with about 50
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 02:50:05AM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
Hi everyone,
First I want to say sorry for this BIG post, but it seems that I have no
other chance. :)
It's not big enough, you did not explain us what your database does nor
how it does work, what type of resource it
34 matches
Mail list logo
