On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:12:09PM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > Timing on a A2000/060 linux 2.4.20 / ext3 filesystem
> > disk old Fuji 2 Go SCSI controller on 060 card:
> linux-2.2.20
> Catweasel IDE controller with IBM-DAQA-32160, 2014MB w/96kB Cache
> /dev/hda:
> Timing buffer-cache
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:31:55PM +0100, Storm66 wrote:
hey, a survivor from the Blizzard2060 list, I assume it is dead by now?
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 19:52, Kars de Jong wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 16:55, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:23:07PM +0100, Richard Zidl
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 19:52, Kars de Jong wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 16:55, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:23:07PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> >
Timing on a A2000/060 linux 2.4.20 / ext3 filesystem
disk old Fuji 2 Go
SCSI controller on 060 card:
/dev/sdb3:
Tim
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:52:21PM +0100, Kars de Jong wrote:
> I have a Blizzard 1260 with a 68060 @ 50 MHz here, and doing a quick
> 'hdparm -T' (to test buffer-cache reads) gives me the following results:
> /dev/hda:
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 9.68 seconds = 13.22 MB/sec
Hmmm,
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 16:55, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:23:07PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
> > > I would like to see around 4-6 MB/s coming out of the disks on that
> > > machine,
> > > so I wonder how to achieve this. Maybe the mentioned change in the source
> >
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:23:07PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > I would like to see around 4-6 MB/s coming out of the disks on that machine,
> > so I wonder how to achieve this. Maybe the mentioned change in the source
> > code from 50 to 25 would be a way. Instead of facing the frontier and
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:54:45AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> I would like to see around 4-6 MB/s coming out of the disks on that machine,
> so I wonder how to achieve this. Maybe the mentioned change in the source
> code from 50 to 25 would be a way. Instead of facing the frontier and risk
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:32:28AM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > Regarding to the above text from kernel source, it might get parity errors
> > with 10 MHz, but how "dangerous" is this?
> silent data corruption, that may be very nasty. You would need a few
> days of stresstesting to figure ou
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:55:00AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Usually I only get around 2 MB/s from disks, either via scsi0 or scsi1.
> Using a raid0 on scsi0 *or* scsi0 doesn't improve speed at all, but raid0 on
> scsi0 *and* scsi1 do (of course, using sdb and sdc), giving a total speed o
I've some disks hooked up to my A3000:
scsi-ncr53c7xx : NCR53c710 at memory 0x4004, io 0x0, irq 12
scsi0: Revision 0x1
scsi0 : NCR code relocated to 0xbefe5e0 (virt 0x03efe5e0)
scsi0 : test 1 started
wd33c93-1: chip=WD33c93A/9 no_sync=0xff no_dma=0 debug_flags=0x00
setup_args=,,
10 matches
Mail list logo
