Re: Add the infamous Huawei E220 to option.c

2007-11-29 Thread Rui Santos
Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag 29 November 2007 schrieb Rui Santos: > >>>> Just to remember that that specific flag was one SET and, was removed, >>>> in part, because of what I state. Of course we aim at perfection but, if >>>> the benefits are

Re: Add the infamous Huawei E220 to option.c

2007-11-29 Thread Rui Santos
Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 11:01:34 schrieb Rui Santos: > >>> Changing the unusual_devs.h flag to IGNORE_DEVICE should accomplish what >>> you want. >>> >>> >> If the IGNORE_DEVICE flag is set, access to the d

Re: Add the infamous Huawei E220 to option.c

2007-11-29 Thread Rui Santos
we aim at perfection but, if the benefits are only for a few situations and, will cause all this problems for all other, perhaps the reinsert of that flag would be a positive action. Regards, Rui Santos > Matt > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Slow Soft-RAID 5 performance

2007-07-19 Thread Rui Santos
chunk, and thus with a 4k block size > you would need a stride of 32. Hi Koan, Yes, I'm sure... Those 128K chunk was my initial setup, before the enlightenment from http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-5.html My reported test setup is by using 256K chunk. > > > > On 7/18/07,

Re: Slow Soft-RAID 5 performance

2007-07-18 Thread Rui Santos
J.A. Magallón wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:56:11 +0100, Rui Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed >> Server. Here are the details: >> >> > ..

Re: Slow Soft-RAID 5 performance

2007-07-18 Thread Rui Santos
koan wrote: > How did you create the ext3 filesystem? The chunk_size is at 256KB, ext3 block size is 4k. I believe the correct option that should be passed trough to --stride is 64. Am I correct ? I've also tested ( after sending my first report ) with xfs. I've also increases readahead to 65535

Slow Soft-RAID 5 performance

2007-07-18 Thread Rui Santos
mily 15 with Hypertheading activated. If it is deactivated, the performance on this specific subject is the same. - Filesystem is ext3 Final quote: Shouldn't I, at least, be able to get write speeds of 120MB/sec instead of the current 73MB/sec? Is this a Soft-RAID problem or could it be so