In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a P3 system running STABLE built on March 7. I installed a new
>IBM DTLA disk drive and was distressed at its slowness, so I tried
>turning on tagging to see if that would help. It seemed to, until...
>
>3 AM when my p
I tried building a "release" ISO image today, but it failed because it
couldn't build the boot floppies.
Tail end of the build process (with an `ls' and `du' thown in).
Is this known?
Kent
linking BOOTMFS
textdata bss dec hex filename
2650861 209180 210260 3070301 2ed95d
Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone has an idea what's going wrong here? (Apart from me doing bullsh*t
> benchmarking :-) .)
Just out of curiosity, try again with prime stripe sizes (31, 61, 127,
257, 509) or at least odd ones (31, 63, 127, 255, 511).
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EM
Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm currently testing with prime stripe sizes, but it doesn't seem to
> help. I additionally added "options AHC_ALLOW_MEMIO" to the kernel, and it
> has raised write performance in the single-disk case (although I'm not
> happy with that one either; I expect
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm currently testing with prime stripe sizes, but it doesn't seem to
> > help. I additionally added "options AHC_ALLOW_MEMIO" to the kernel, and it
> > has raised write performance in the single-disk case
Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > Does the data sheet for your disk indicate that it can in fact write
> > much faster than that?
> Well, the HP/Compaq webpages are full of marketing speech wrt that, but
> since these disks are U320 disks,
On Sunday, 30 March 2003 at 14:08:24 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Anyone has an idea what's going wrong here? (Apart from me doing bullsh*t
>> benchmarking :-) .)
>
> Just out of curiosity, try again with prime stripe sizes (31, 61, 127,
> 257, 509) o
On Sunday, 30 March 2003 at 16:30:17 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Anti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> try benchmarking ccd as well to see how it compares? and try some big stripe
>> sizes (4093, 8191, 12281)?
>
> I believe Greg showed in his USENIX paper on Vinum that large stripe
> sizes are
On Sunday, 30 March 2003 at 18:10:07 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm currently testing with prime stripe sizes, but it doesn't seem to
>> help. I additionally added "options AHC_ALLOW_MEMIO" to the kernel, and it
>> has raised write performance in th
