Glad it helped
- Original Message -
On 21.08.2013, ergodic wrote:
> The UUIDs of the newly partitioned drive will most probably
> be different from those of the original drive
They *are* different, with 100% certainty. Great you mentioned it,
this will help to avoid mount problems (and
On 21.08.2013, ergodic wrote:
> The UUIDs of the newly partitioned drive will most probably
> be different from those of the original drive
They *are* different, with 100% certainty. Great you mentioned it,
this will help to avoid mount problems (and save some time using a
rescue disk to fix tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/21/2013 11:15 PM, ergodic wrote:
> Caveat.
>
> The UUIDs of the newly partitioned drive will most probably be different
> from those of the original drive which can create problems with the booting
> and swap partitions. Check the /etc/fstab fil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/21/2013 03:16 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 08/21/2013 05:13 AM, Gregory Hosler wrote:
>
>> If a mounted partition is being copied, then the result (destination) is
>> that mounted partition. As boot time, it will need to be fsck. Any open
>>
Caveat.
The UUIDs of the newly partitioned drive will most probably
be different from those of the original drive which can create
problems with the booting and swap partitions.
Check the /etc/fstab file to see what UUIDs the OS is using.
The UUIDs of the original drive and partitions should be i
On 08/21/2013 05:13 AM, Gregory Hosler wrote:
> If a mounted partition is being copied, then the result (destination) is that
> mounted partition. As boot time, it will need to be fsck. Any open files will
> be in whatever state they were in when they were copied. Hence, all files
> should be c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/19/2013 04:57 AM, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
> I plan to swap the HD on my laptop with an SSD of same size. Will it work
> OK if I dd the HD to an external HD, swap the HD with the SSD and dd the
> contents back to the SSD? I believe I can use knoppix
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 20.08.2013, Heinz Diehl wrote:
>
> []
>
> And the kernel is vanilla from kernel.org:
>
> [htd@kiera ~]$ uname -a
> Linux kiera.fritha.org 3.10.8 #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Aug 20 19:53:31 CEST 2013
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 08:32:22PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 20.08.2013, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
>
> > Here are the program numbers while running the script:
> >
> > CFQ:
> []
>
> Seems that cfq performs better on your machine, under this workload.
Apparently so. But I can't expla
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 04:02:42PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 20.08.2013, Heinz Diehl wrote:
>
> > Then, open another one and run fsync-tester. The numbers that count to
> > compare different elevators on your system is the output fsync-tester
> > generates while your machine is generating t
Am 20.08.2013 19:15, schrieb Mihai T. Lazarescu:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:56:56PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
>> All these numbers are pointless, because when I see
>> your results I'm quite shure you did run the test without
>> generating loads of disk I/O in parallel. What you actually
>> mea
On 20.08.2013, Heinz Diehl wrote:
[]
And the kernel is vanilla from kernel.org:
[htd@kiera ~]$ uname -a
Linux kiera.fritha.org 3.10.8 #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Aug 20 19:53:31 CEST 2013
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change s
On 20.08.2013, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
> Here are the program numbers while running the script:
>
> CFQ:
[]
Seems that cfq performs better on your machine, under this workload.
Gave it a quick test (using the original fsync-tester from Ted Tso):
cfq:
htd@kiera test]$ ./fst1
fsync time:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:56:56PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 20.08.2013, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the pointer. I add to the mix my test results for
> > F19 with kernel 3.10.7 on an ASUS UX31E with its factory 256GB
> > SSD-only mass storage.
> >
> > CFQ scheduler run1:
>
On 20.08.2013, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> Then, open another one and run fsync-tester. The numbers that count to
> compare different elevators on your system is the output fsync-tester
> generates while your machine is generating the "bigfile".
And while your're at it, you could also consider doing so
Hi Mihai,
On 20.08.2013, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer. I add to the mix my test results for
> F19 with kernel 3.10.7 on an ASUS UX31E with its factory 256GB
> SSD-only mass storage.
>
> CFQ scheduler run1:
[]
All these numbers are pointless, because when I see your
r
On 08/19/2013 09:43 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> If I were you I'd go with fresh partition and new filesystem. Now, it's
> a good time to optimize your filesystem, maybe fix some broken metadata
> and i-nodes. You don't copy all that garbage. If you simply use dd, you
> also preserve potential
On 18/08/13 22:57, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
I plan to swap the HD on my laptop with an SSD of same size. Will it work OK if
I dd the HD to an external HD, swap the HD with the SSD and dd the contents back
to the SSD? I believe I can use knoppix to the process.
Thanks to everybody for providing suc
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:24:14PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 19.08.2013, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
>
> > It appears that CFQ can sense and adapt to SSD and has little
> > if any loss to other I/O schedulers:
>
> > http://www.velobit.com/storage-performance-blog/bid/126135/Effects-Of-Linux-
On 18.08.2013 22:57, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
> I plan to swap the HD on my laptop with an SSD of same size. Will it
> work OK if I dd the HD to an external HD, swap the HD with the SSD and
> dd the contents back to the SSD? I believe I can use knoppix to the
> process.
>
If I were you I'd go with fr
On 19.08.2013, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
> It appears that CFQ can sense and adapt to SSD and has little
> if any loss to other I/O schedulers:
> http://www.velobit.com/storage-performance-blog/bid/126135/Effects-Of-Linux-IO-Scheduler-On-SSD-Performance
They only tested bandwidth, not latency.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:30:06PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> Don't forget to switch to the deadline elevator, it works a
> lot better than cfq in combination with non-rotational drives.
It appears that CFQ can sense and adapt to SSD and has little
if any loss to other I/O schedulers:
https
On 19.08.2013, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
> I plan to swap the HD on my laptop with an SSD of same size. Will it work OK
> if I dd the HD to an external HD, swap the HD with the SSD and dd the
> contents back to the SSD?
Technically it would work, but you'll most probably encounter a huge
performance
On 18 Aug 2013 at 22:57, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Date sent: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:57:09 +0200
From: "Erik P. Olsen"
Organization: EPO data
To: Fedora Mailing List
Subject: HD to SSD question.
Sen
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 10:57:09PM +0200, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
> I plan to swap the HD on my laptop with an SSD of same size.
> Will it work OK if I dd the HD to an external HD, swap
> the HD with the SSD and dd the contents back to the SSD?
> I believe I can use knoppix to the process.
You can d
I plan to swap the HD on my laptop with an SSD of same size. Will it work OK if
I dd the HD to an external HD, swap the HD with the SSD and dd the contents back
to the SSD? I believe I can use knoppix to the process.
--
Erik
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or
26 matches
Mail list logo
