On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:16:07 -0400, Andy Davidoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>You are correct, of course, my fault. :-) This is apparently
>distribution-specific.
More accurately, it's dependent on being properly configured. I've
reconfigured my swaps to both have priority 1, and the kernel does
You are correct, of course, my fault. :-)
This is apparently distribution-specific.
See 'priority' in the swapon([28]) pages:
Swap pages are allocated from areas in priority order,
highest priority first. For areas with different priori-
ties, a higher-priority area
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:59:27 -0400, Andy Davidoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Under Linux, multiple swap partitions are automagically striped,
This is not true, at least not under 2.2.12:
[kelly@poverty ca]$ cat /proc/swaps
FilenameTypeSizeUsedPriority
Under Linux, multiple swap partitions are automagically striped, so
the ideal scenario is in fact to spread your swap partitions over many
channels and many spindles (disks) for maximal I/O performance. In
most desktop Linux boxen, swap I/O eclipses all other disk activity.
How much swap you nee
CatNTHat
-Original Message-
From:Darren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:40:25 -0500 (CDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Kathleen Russell, fone.net tech support wrote:
>And I shoul
On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 07:29:11PM -0500, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:40:25 -0500 (CDT), Darren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> >For #2, I take it to basically mean that /boot must be on a primary
> >drive. (I have no idea what would happen if somebody had one hard
> >driv
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeramia Ory
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 12:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: FW: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
>
>
> > I must confess, I am a bit confused about why
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:40:25 -0500 (CDT), Darren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>For #2, I take it to basically mean that /boot must be on a primary
>drive. (I have no idea what would happen if somebody had one hard
>drive and nothing else on the primary chain, and a second hard drive
>on the second
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Kathleen Russell, fone.net tech support wrote:
>And I shouldn't have any LILO issues if they are each a master, correct?
When I tried to dual boot on my old machine, I had the linux HD on the
secondary chain, and LILO protested quite vociferously. Note that even if
for some
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
Wow, thanks for all the help! I can't wait to get to tinkering around in
the innards of my computer!
I must confess, I am a bit confused about why swap partitons on opposite
drives would boost performance.
And I shou
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:57:32 -0500, Jeramia Ory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>One cause of a performance hit is when you swap memory in and out
>of the partition. In a single drive system, even thought the swap is
>on a separate partition, it can't access two partitions on the same
>drive at th
> I must confess, I am a bit confused about why swap partitons on opposite
> drives would boost performance.
Caveat: this is all how I understand it, and could be completely bogus,
and would welcome someone correcting me on anything I have wrong.
One cause of a performance hit is when yo
Wow, thanks for all the help! I can't wait to get to tinkering around in
the innards of my computer!
I must confess, I am a bit confused about why swap partitons on opposite
drives would boost performance.
And I shouldn't have any LILO issues if they are each a master, correct?
Thanks again, e
the bus is so much slower than the speed your computer is
processing information at.
Thanks,
CatNTHat
-Original Message-
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:Mon, 17 Apr 2000 03:52:20 +
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
The
> With IDE devices, only one of the master/slave can talk to your computer at a
> time, on each channel. But your computer is able to talk to a device on the
> primary channel at the same time as it talks to a device on the secondary
> channel.
[snip]
> What I would probably do is set both hard dr
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Audin Malmin wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 10:39:32PM -0700, Lothan wrote:
>> If what I understand is correct, the cable select option requires a special
>> cable that has the master/slave pins removed as appropriate.
>
> the "special" cable just has the device select
On Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 10:39:32PM -0700, Lothan wrote:
> If what I understand is correct, the cable select option requires a special
> cable that has the master/slave pins removed as appropriate.
the "special" cable just has the device select lines (there
are two of them) twisted between
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
>There are also issues with putting devices that can handle both 16-bit
>and 32-bit transfers on the same channel as devices that only handle
>16-bit transfers; my understanding is that 16-bit-only devices may
>become confused by 32-bit transfers to
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Darren
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 9:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:34:28 -0400, "Wendt,Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>With IDE devices, only one of the master/slave can talk to your
>computer at a time, on each channel. But your computer is able to
>talk to a device on the primary channel at the same time as it talks
>to a device on th
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, The Russells wrote:
>Anyway. Currently, according to BIOS, my primary master is my 15GB HD. I
>don't have a primary slave or a secondary master. My secondary slave is my
>CD-ROM. This seems strange to me, as I don't have a secondary master.
>However, I am a Mac user at h
>
> I was unaware of any performance differences based on location, but
> someone in the thread mentioned that HD slaves of ATAPI devices can
> suffer. (or 'pears' where an ATAPI is the 'banana'. Hm. Maybe the terms
> aren't quite that arbitrary.)
>
> Jenn V.
Supposedly an IDE controller will d
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The Cat In The Hat wrote:
>>
>> The CD-Rom is the secondary slave because of where it is on the cable. You want
>your new hard drive to be the primary slave in the system. You do not want to move
>you CD-Rom to the Primary slave position. The pos
The Cat In The Hat wrote:
>
> The CD-Rom is the secondary slave because of where it is on the cable. You want
>your new hard drive to be the primary slave in the system. You do not want to move
>you CD-Rom to the Primary slave position. The position it is currently in is
>actually the best f
of hard drives.
CatNTHat
-Original Message-
From:The Russells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:27:07 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
Hi all. Long story short, I have decided to install Linux (Mandrake 6.0) on
The Russells wrote:
> Hi all. Long story short, I have decided to install Linux (Mandrake 6.0) on
> a second hard drive, rather than partitioning my current 15GB hard drive
> devoted to Windows 98. The second hard drive is 10.1 GB and boots to DOS
> only right now. It's not even installed on m
Hi all. Long story short, I have decided to install Linux (Mandrake 6.0) on
a second hard drive, rather than partitioning my current 15GB hard drive
devoted to Windows 98. The second hard drive is 10.1 GB and boots to DOS
only right now. It's not even installed on my machine yet.
Obviously, I
27 matches
Mail list logo
