> Then I tried kernel 2.4.1. I issued exactly the same hdparm command.
> i got in syslog the message: "ide0: Speed warnings UDMA 3/4/5 is not
> functional"!
I had the same problem.
Add
append="ide0=ata66 ide1=ata66 ide0=autotune ide1=autotune hda=autotune
hdb=autotune hdc=autotune"
to lilo.conf
I just upgraded from 2.2.16 to 2.2.18 in a production machine. The machine
dies after few minutes with the following error message (it's not complete,
the machine was rebooted by a colleague of mine):
Kernel panic
Exception.
Context corruption at bank 0
The motherboard is a RD440LX DP, with ada
I noticed in my server that the memory consumption with 2.4.1 it much higher
than 2.2.18 and it gets worse over time.
Free was reporting up to 140MB of RAM with no user/X session (50-60MB with
2.2.18, same software). I've upgraded to procps 2.0.7, but the problem
persists. After few minutes of re
> you should give up thinking there's any real relation between 2.2
> and 2.4. yes, they're both Linux, but their behaviors are essentially
> unrelated.
>
> > total used free sharedbuffers
>cached
> > Mem:255340 232444 22896 0 16
Hi,
you can find at http://bulma.lug.net/static/ a few new benchmarks among
Reiser, XFS and Ext2 (also one with JFS).
This time there is a comprehensive Hans' Mongo benchmarks
(http://bulma.lug.net/static/mongo/ )and a couple of kernel compilations and
read/write/fsync operations tests (I
> My apologies, I meant that the make is probably compiler bound (I said CPU
> bound) not FS bound.
We undertood ;-)
> > cp -ar, and I would like Yura to try to reproduce the cp -ar as
> > it seems too
> > good to be true.
> We find that one must use cp and similar utilities (not
The cp -a fig
> > was _just_ copied from another file system (still in buffer/cache).
> You might consider rebooting to flush the cache.
>
Is it possible to achieve the same by umounting/mounting the file system?
--ricardo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bo
ous.
Can I do any further test? Or is it a stupid mistake?
Cheers.
--
ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34
http://mnm.uib.es/gallir/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at h
>> Definitely not caused by:
>> Bad Rams, mb-chipset.
>
> Erm, it was bad RAM everytime it happened to me. On standard PCs, you
> don't see those because you don't have ECC and the error is simply not
> detected.
I did have the same problem with an SMP Intel 440LX which run without any
problem si
> It would be great to see a table of ReiserFS/XFS/Ext2+index performance
> results. Well, to make it really fair it should be Ext3+index so I'd
> better add 'backport the patch to 2.2' or 'bug Stephen and friends to
> hurry up' to my to-do list.
You can find a simple benchmark (an average of thr
nchmarks to the list because last time we were
slashdotted ;-) and we aren't convinced they are valueable, but I can send
it to you directly if you are interested.
Regards,
--
ricardo galli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
le in this kernel without
worrying about "fair use" or "derived work", GPL allows her to do it.
So, where's the freaking relationship between GPL (or its "zealots") and "fair
use"? Who is trying to re-define it?
FUD, FUD, FUD.
--
ricardo galli
On Saturday 16 December 2006 22:01, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never
> > tried to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to
> > "di
the "official" arguments- as a message that makes clear FSF is not trying to
push his agenda into the gray areas of copyright laws.
But the very same evidence is used to loudly support an opposite
interpretation of FSF [evil] intentions, to weaken the legal strength of the
GPL, and
14 matches
Mail list logo
