Harald Staub, 2002-Oct-15 08:18 +0200:
>
> I have just disabled noflushd, after seeing all the interesting information
> in this thread and after some estimations.
>
> My Inspiron 4100 has a battery with 59Wh. With my kind of work, I can
> expect that this is enough for about 3h, so it needs ab
Harald Staub, 2002-Oct-15 08:18 +0200:
>
> I have just disabled noflushd, after seeing all the interesting information
> in this thread and after some estimations.
>
> My Inspiron 4100 has a battery with 59Wh. With my kind of work, I can
> expect that this is enough for about 3h, so it needs a
In recent kernel (2.4.20pre...), an option (commit) is available.
have crashes only when experimenting with the kernel, I think this is
not as bad as it might look at first glance. But, you know, no
guarantees of mine, your filesystem might become garbled, your hard
disk might become fried!
> In recent kernel (2.4.20pre...), an option (commit) is available.
>
>> have crashes only when experimenting with the kernel, I think this is
>> not as bad as it might look at first glance. But, you know, no
>> guarantees of mine, your filesystem might become garbled, your hard
>> disk might be
No I boot on single mode (ie. nothing is running, only one shell and the
kernel).
Christophe
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 02:46:43PM -0400, cyn wrote:
> is the machine swapping? just a possibility, if it's swap is a swap file
> not a seperate partition [although the same could exist with a seperate
>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:29:44PM -0400, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 08:37:01PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, I only understand the
> > basics. The links I posted have discriptions from those much
> > better able to describe it than me.
>
> I un
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 08:37:01PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, I only understand the
> basics. The links I posted have discriptions from those much
> better able to describe it than me.
I understand (roughly, I am not a programmer) your idea, and
I really did no
No I boot on single mode (ie. nothing is running, only one shell and the
kernel).
Christophe
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 02:46:43PM -0400, cyn wrote:
> is the machine swapping? just a possibility, if it's swap is a swap file
> not a seperate partition [although the same could exist with a seperate
>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 03:03:08PM -0400, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:41:55PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > It seems nothing is committed unless there is a dirty block ie
> > something, somewhere has changed, however small or seemingly
> > insignificant. It would be pretty difficult
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:29:44PM -0400, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 08:37:01PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, I only understand the
> > basics. The links I posted have discriptions from those much
> > better able to describe it than me.
>
> I u
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:41:55PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> It seems nothing is committed unless there is a dirty block ie
> something, somewhere has changed, however small or seemingly
> insignificant. It would be pretty difficult to stop _all_ disk activity,
> unless a very high percentage of you
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 08:37:01PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, I only understand the
> basics. The links I posted have discriptions from those much
> better able to describe it than me.
I understand (roughly, I am not a programmer) your idea, and
I really did n
is the machine swapping? just a possibility, if it's swap is a swap file
not a seperate partition [although the same could exist with a seperate
partition i suppose].
-
This email has been sent as a single line of query, and in no way
indicates the senders interest in or acceptance of any prom
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:27:20PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 12:54:55PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:22:45PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > > > In my opinion this is not a solution. First I am still not convinced
> > > > that it is normal for ext3
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 12:54:55PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:22:45PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > > In my opinion this is not a solution. First I am still not convinced
> > > that it is normal for ext3 to touch the disk when there is no other
> > > activity on the sy
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 03:03:08PM -0400, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:41:55PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > It seems nothing is committed unless there is a dirty block ie
> > something, somewhere has changed, however small or seemingly
> > insignificant. It would be pretty difficul
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:41:55PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> It seems nothing is committed unless there is a dirty block ie
> something, somewhere has changed, however small or seemingly
> insignificant. It would be pretty difficult to stop _all_ disk activity,
> unless a very high percentage of yo
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:22:45PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > In my opinion this is not a solution. First I am still not convinced
> > that it is normal for ext3 to touch the disk when there is no other
> > activity on the system. Then spinning the disk for 5 minutes seems very
> > bad from the pow
is the machine swapping? just a possibility, if it's swap is a swap file
not a seperate partition [although the same could exist with a seperate
partition i suppose].
-
This email has been sent as a single line of query, and in no way
indicates the senders interest in or acceptance of any pro
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:03:41AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
[snip]
> > have crashes only when experimenting with the kernel, I think this is not
> > as bad as it might look at first glance. But, you know, no guarantees of
> > mine, your filesystem might become garbled, your hard disk migh
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:27:20PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 12:54:55PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:22:45PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > > > In my opinion this is not a solution. First I am still not convinced
> > > > that it is normal for ext
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 12:54:55PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:22:45PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > > In my opinion this is not a solution. First I am still not convinced
> > > that it is normal for ext3 to touch the disk when there is no other
> > > activity on the s
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:22:45PM +0100, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > In my opinion this is not a solution. First I am still not convinced
> > that it is normal for ext3 to touch the disk when there is no other
> > activity on the system. Then spinning the disk for 5 minutes seems very
> > bad from the po
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:03:41AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
[snip]
> > have crashes only when experimenting with the kernel, I think this is not
> > as bad as it might look at first glance. But, you know, no guarantees of
> > mine, your filesystem might become garbled, your hard disk mig
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:20:27AM +0200, Harald Staub wrote:
> This is probably stupid, but I am quite happy with the following
> "solution". I hacked the source. The 5 second commit interval is hardcoded
> in
>
> fs/jbd/journal.c:
>
>journal->j_commit_interval = (HZ * 5);
>
> I chang
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:20:27AM +0200, Harald Staub wrote:
> This is probably stupid, but I am quite happy with the following
> "solution". I hacked the source. The 5 second commit interval is hardcoded
> in
>
> fs/jbd/journal.c:
>
>journal->j_commit_interval = (HZ * 5);
>
> I chan
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Harald Staub wrote:
> This is probably stupid, but I am quite happy with the following
> "solution". I hacked the source. The 5 second commit interval is hardcoded
> in
>
> fs/jbd/journal.c:
>
> journal->j_commit_interval = (HZ * 5);
>
> I changed 5 to 300. What
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Harald Staub wrote:
> This is probably stupid, but I am quite happy with the following
> "solution". I hacked the source. The 5 second commit interval is hardcoded
> in
>
> fs/jbd/journal.c:
>
> journal->j_commit_interval = (HZ * 5);
>
> I changed 5 to 300. What
> I've also experimented on this for quite a while and found that only
> ext2 (or other non journalling fs) will allow the disk to spin down
> with the help of noflushd and setting noatime.
> I found no journalling fs which works. If you do please let me know
> how.
XFS turned out to allow spin d
>> > I've also experimented on this for quite a while and found that only
>> > ext2 (or other non journalling fs) will allow the disk to spin down
>> > with the help of noflushd and setting noatime.
>> > I found no journalling fs which works. If you do please let me know
>> > how.
>>
>> XFS turned
On Sunday 13 October 2002 18:30, Dietmar Nusch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 12 October 2002 19:30, Benjamin Fritzsche wrote:
> > I've also experimented on this for quite a while and found that only ext2
> > (or other non journalling fs) will allow the disk to spin down with the
> > help of noflushd
Hi,
On Saturday 12 October 2002 19:30, Benjamin Fritzsche wrote:
> I've also experimented on this for quite a while and found that only ext2
> (or other non journalling fs) will allow the disk to spin down with the
> help of noflushd and setting noatime.
> I found no journalling fs which works. I
On Sunday 13 October 2002 18:30, Dietmar Nusch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 12 October 2002 19:30, Benjamin Fritzsche wrote:
> > I've also experimented on this for quite a while and found that only ext2
> > (or other non journalling fs) will allow the disk to spin down with the
> > help of noflush
Hi,
On Saturday 12 October 2002 19:30, Benjamin Fritzsche wrote:
> I've also experimented on this for quite a while and found that only ext2
> (or other non journalling fs) will allow the disk to spin down with the
> help of noflushd and setting noatime.
> I found no journalling fs which works.
On Saturday 12 October 2002 17:02, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:25:40PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > > ext3 will write to the disk every 5 seconds or so. For me,
> > > that is what prevents the HD from spinning down. Under ext2
> > > the noflushd should work nicely, but ext3
On Saturday 12 October 2002 17:02, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:25:40PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > > ext3 will write to the disk every 5 seconds or so. For me,
> > > that is what prevents the HD from spinning down. Under ext2
> > > the noflushd should work nicely, but ext3
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:25:40PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > ext3 will write to the disk every 5 seconds or so. For me,
> > that is what prevents the HD from spinning down. Under ext2
> > the noflushd should work nicely, but ext3 wants to write to
> > its journal every so often...
>
> I d
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:25:40PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > ext3 will write to the disk every 5 seconds or so. For me,
> > that is what prevents the HD from spinning down. Under ext2
> > the noflushd should work nicely, but ext3 wants to write to
> > its journal every so often...
>
> I d
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:08:51PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > kjournald is there because of ext3. Could it be responsible for that?
>
> ext3 will write to the disk every 5 seconds or so. For me, that is what
> prevents the HD from spinning down. Under ext2 the noflushd should work
> nicel
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:08:51PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > kjournald is there because of ext3. Could it be responsible for that?
>
> ext3 will write to the disk every 5 seconds or so. For me, that is what
> prevents the HD from spinning down. Under ext2 the noflushd should work
> nicel
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:55:06PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just got a new laptop (a powerpc) running a recent 2.4 kernel
> (2.4.20-pre9-ben0) and see a lot of HD access when I do nothing.
> And I still see (and hear) HD access every 20 seconds or so.
> I guess it's bdflus
Hi,
I just got a new laptop (a powerpc) running a recent 2.4 kernel
(2.4.20-pre9-ben0) and see a lot of HD access when I do nothing.
I have stopped everything possible and then have:
~$ ps aux
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
root 1 0.0 0.2 1480
Hi,
I just got a new laptop (a powerpc) running a recent 2.4 kernel
(2.4.20-pre9-ben0) and see a lot of HD access when I do nothing.
I have stopped everything possible and then have:
~$ ps aux
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
root 1 0.0 0.2 1480
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:55:06PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just got a new laptop (a powerpc) running a recent 2.4 kernel
> (2.4.20-pre9-ben0) and see a lot of HD access when I do nothing.
> And I still see (and hear) HD access every 20 seconds or so.
> I guess it's bdflus
44 matches
Mail list logo
