On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:29:00 -0800 (PST)
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> First you have the faster portion of the drive using a lame OS, so do
> not
> expect Linux to perform if you put it on the slowest portions of the
> device.
>
Hi Andre,
Thanks for responding. The days of the
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:38:47 -0500
Mike Dresser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that drives have different transfer rates depending on
> where on the drive you read from.
>
That is something I knew a little about, and am now learning much more. Even so, I am
surprised that there i
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:14:53 -0800
Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Change partition type to 'c' (fat32+LBA); check that BIOS is set for
> (AUTO or USER) and LBA.
>
Hi Tim,
I am afraid that I do not know how to change my partition type. I can confirm.
however, that the BIOS is set to Au
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:56:56 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> am I correct in interpreting the bonnie output for
> the block read (included in my earlier post), of 20937 KB/sec as
> reasonably healthy for my DTLA (ie consistent with hdparm's 30 MB/sec),
> when performing more realistic tasks on t
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:32:48 -0500 (EST)
Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hdparm -t cannot be effected by the filesystem
> that lives in the partition, since hdparm is doing reads that don't
> go through the filesystem. hmm, I wonder if that's it: if you mount
> the FS that's in hd
Hi,
First, thank you very much Mark, Tim, Jeremy and Holger for your continuing
contributions which, I think, are at last casting some light on my "problem".
> Yes this is why I originally replied to the post... but he's not using a
> PIIXx at
> all,
> but the IDE chip on an Intel 815 motherboa
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:17:38 -0800
Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Jackson wrote:
> >
> > Tim Moore wrote:
> > > 15MB/s for hdparm is about right.
> >
> > Yes, since hdparm -t measures *SUSTAINED* transfers... the actual
> "head rate" of data reads from
> > disk surface. Only if
Hi,
This question is much the same as one I posted a couple of months ago, at which time I
was using the stock 2.2.18 kernel supplied with my SuSE distro. Some people suggested
that I should upgrade, and since then I have been learning my way around kernel
compilation and following this list.
Mike / Mark,
Thank-you very much for your replies.
With regard to Mike, (a) I am using a PIII 800, so I really should be seeing better
results than your Celeron. It seems, therefore, that my setup may be defective in
more fundamental ways than I had imagined. (b) I do appreciate that I may n
Greetings Gurus,
Have I found a tiny, perhaps irrelevant, bug ?
I have recently installed SuSE 7.0 with the supplied 2.2.16 kernel on my
homebuilt dual-boot machine, which has an 815e chipset (Asus CuSL2 board), plus
30GB IBM Deskstar 75GXP HDD (hda). As I understand it both of these support UD
10 matches
Mail list logo
