On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:32:32AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2009-08-03, Jan Stary wrote:
> > On Jul 30 22:06:41, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >> On 2009-07-30, Jan Stary wrote:
> >> > is 128M, that's why I use xserv45.tgz and not base45.tgz;
> >> > and it should have been tar xzpf I guess
On 2009-08-03, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Jul 30 22:06:41, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2009-07-30, Jan Stary wrote:
>> > is 128M, that's why I use xserv45.tgz and not base45.tgz;
>> > and it should have been tar xzpf I guess - does it make
>> > a difference? And it shloud be done in single user - bu
On Jul 30 22:06:41, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2009-07-30, Jan Stary wrote:
> > is 128M, that's why I use xserv45.tgz and not base45.tgz;
> > and it should have been tar xzpf I guess - does it make
> > a difference? And it shloud be done in single user - but
> > the machine is almost idle, reall
On 2009-07-30, Jan Stary wrote:
> is 128M, that's why I use xserv45.tgz and not base45.tgz;
> and it should have been tar xzpf I guess - does it make
> a difference? And it shloud be done in single user - but
> the machine is almost idle, really.)
xserv has a small number of large files, whereas
On Jul 30 11:25:23, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >> it was even async, which makes me curious about the install slowness.
> >> Could the card or the exact mount options be the cause of that?
>
> Well, you already noticed the main difference; one is async, the
> other uses softdep. That should sugges
On Jul 30 14:29:06, Tobias Walkowiak wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:25:23AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose you use an CF-card with about x133 speed. I had the same
> > > problem.
> > > After using a card with at least x233 speed I didn't have that problem
> > > when
> >
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:25:23AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > I suppose you use an CF-card with about x133 speed. I had the same problem.
> > After using a card with at least x233 speed I didn't have that problem when
> > untaring anymore.
>
> The speed rating by itself isn't very usefu
>> it was even async, which makes me curious about the install slowness.
>> Could the card or the exact mount options be the cause of that?
Well, you already noticed the main difference; one is async, the
other uses softdep. That should suggest a simple test you can make;
untarring on a running s
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 06:14:18PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> When installing 4.5 on an ALIX (see dmesg below) the
ALIX is a good choice!
> phase of actually untar'ing the tgz sets was very slow:
> sets became -stalled- even if untared from local disk (pre-downloaded).
I suppose you use an CF-car
When installing 4.5 on an ALIX (see dmesg below) the
phase of actually untar'ing the tgz sets was very slow:
sets became -stalled- even if untared from local disk (pre-downloaded).
The installation (sans X) took about an hour because of that.
The local disk is a (not very fast) CF card. So I tried
10 matches
Mail list logo
