On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 09:46 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And for the record, I believe NEC and NCR are now the same company,
> > rather than two separate entities of a holding company.
>
> Er, no.
>
[...snip...]
Thanks Miles. I'll have to go back and s
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And for the record, I believe NEC and NCR are now the same company,
> rather than two separate entities of a holding company.
Er, no.
* NEC is a giant Japanese electronics manufacturer (Nippon Electric Corp).[1]
In the 80s/early-90s, they made their o
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 15:10 -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >> [...snip...]
> >> Anyway, the problem goes away with a 2.6 kernel. This is with no
> >> changes to BIOS or any of the package configurations. This
> >> gives _me_ an acceptable soluti
On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
[...snip...]
Anyway, the problem goes away with a 2.6 kernel. This is with no
changes to BIOS or any of the package configurations. This
gives _me_ an acceptable solutionfor now.
What do you mean "for now"?
I mean, until I either unders
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rich Johnson wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2006, at 4:38 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> Better support for h/w. (For example, you may want to install
>> a SATA card in your machine. I don't know how well 2.4
>> supports SATA.)
>>
>> The 2.6 kernel is where
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 21:24 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Rich Johnson wrote:
> > I also notice that there's a big discrepancy in the readahead.
> > What are the tradeoffs of bumping this number? It just preloads
> > the disk controller's cache, right?
>
> Good question.
It is the difference betwee
On Jul 9, 2006, at 4:38 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
Better support for h/w. (For example, you may want to install a
SATA card in your machine. I don't know how well 2.4 supports SATA.)
The 2.6 kernel is where all new features like "more efficient ext3"
are released.
Even if 2.4 does everything y
On 08.07.06 15:15, Rich Johnson wrote:
> I have just converted an old NEC PG350 (500MHz) w 256MB and 20G(WDC
> WD200BB) disk from WIn'98 to Debian Sarge and ran into a problem I've
> never before encountered with Debian:
>
> Performance that is HORRIBLE beyond belief!
>
> For example:
> - ~
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris wrote:
> On Sunday 09 July 2006 03:20, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Rich Johnson wrote:
>>> The only philosophical basis is that 2.4 it is what the installer
>>> installs...and that dist-upgrade doesn't see fit to upgrade it.
>> Kernel 2.6 is "hidden",
On Sunday 09 July 2006 03:20, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Rich Johnson wrote:
> > The only philosophical basis is that 2.4 it is what the installer
> > installs...and that dist-upgrade doesn't see fit to upgrade it.
>
> Kernel 2.6 is "hidden", but running linux26 would install a 2.6
> kernel. At the CD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>>> and hdparm reports:
>>>
>>> /dev/hda:
>>> multcount= 16 (on)
>>> IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
>>> unmaskirq= 0 (off)
>>> usin
Rich Johnson wrote:
[...]
Sat Jul 8 17:31:04 2006: Calculating module dependencies... done.
Sat Jul 8 17:33:38 2006: Loading modules: ide-cd ide-detect ide-disk
psmouse modprobe: Can't locate module psmouse
[...]
Perhaps something is wrong with your module loading system. It doesn't
take 2
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
and hdparm reports:
/dev/hda:
multcount= 16 (on)
IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq= 0 (off)
using_dma= 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead= 8 (on)
geometry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>>
>>> BTW, I'm running 2.4.27-2-386
>>
>> That's 2 years old. Any particular reason you aren't running
>> 2.6?
>>
>> (No, "it's unstable" is *not* a valid reason.")
>>
>
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
BTW, I'm running 2.4.27-2-386
That's 2 years old. Any particular reason you aren't running 2.6?
(No, "it's unstable" is *not* a valid reason.")
Tthis is a brand new installfirst walk, then run. Alas, the
system only crawls :-<
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
>>
>> it will give you detailed logs of the boot process so you can review
>> it and see what's happen instead of trying to read it as it zips (in
>> your case, crawls
On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
it will give you detailed logs of the boot process so you can review
it and see what's happen instead of trying to read it as it zips (in
your case, crawls?) by.
Got it. I can also cut and paste to show that I'm not dreaming. For
i
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 05:22:13PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >>
> >>What gives? I've never seen such bad performance.
> >>What diagnostics/benchmarks should I be looking at?
> >>
> >>Judging from the lackadaisical disk LED activity, I doub
Rich Johnson wrote:
> Judging from the lackadaisical disk LED activity, I doubt it's the disk.
Disk issues can lead to apparently low disk activity in some situations,
and it's the first thing I'd check: Make sure that DMA is on, make sure
that hdparm is optimally tuned, etc.
--
see shy jo
sig
On Jul 8, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
What gives? I've never seen such bad performance.
What diagnostics/benchmarks should I be looking at?
Judging from the lackadaisical disk LED activity, I doubt it's the
disk.
Have you enabled bootlogd?
No. It's installed, but disabled in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rich Johnson wrote:
> Folks--
>
> I have just converted an old NEC PG350 (500MHz) w 256MB and 20G(WDC
> WD200BB) disk from WIn'98 to Debian Sarge and ran into a problem I've
> never before encountered with Debian:
>
> Performance that is HORRIBLE bey
21 matches
Mail list logo
