[SLUG] Asus EeePC 1005HA
quote who=Kyle 1. What you bought Asus EeePC 1005HA (bought on New Year's Day, so this is a short-term review) plus an OCZ Vertex 30GB SSD, which makes quite a difference to battery life and performance. The netbook itself was ~$450 -- great price point for what it is. 2. Are you still happy Very much so. 3. How has the battery life stood up over the 6m. 4. What sort of battery life are you getting (esp. now after 6 months) Early days yet, but the battery life on this thing is INSANE. I loved not having to cart around a power cable during linux.conf.au, even with heavy web/email usage. 5. How easy was it to get your chosen Linux up and running (this is of course relative to the person - Me. I'm no genius, but I can figure it out if I have to) Cinchy. Made an Ubuntu USB installer on my desktop, then everything on the netbook proceeded as normal. 6. How has the build quality stood up Thus far, awesome. It's the new seashell style from Asus, so it's much sleeker than the plasticky early versions. 7. What sorts of quirks have you discovered There were a few funny things going on with wifi (ath9k driver), but I'm now running lucid (what will become Ubuntu 10.04 LTS), and it's doing very well. Which processor should I be avoiding at this point? Any of the Z-series Atom CPUs (which come with GMA500 built-in graphics, an abomination without adequate FLOSS drivers). Your best bet is to get older netbooks with the N280 (better than N270) or one of the new ones with N450, if you're not optimizing for price. - Jeff -- The Great Australian Internet Blackout http://www.internetblackout.com.au/ The beanbag is a triumph of modern day eclectic colourism... - Catie Flick -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Re: Asus EeePC 1005HA
Jeff Waugh wrote: 2. Are you still happy Very much so. +1 on that :) 3. How has the battery life stood up over the 6m. 4. What sort of battery life are you getting (esp. now after 6 months) Early days yet, but the battery life on this thing is INSANE. I loved not having to cart around a power cable during linux.conf.au, even with heavy web/email usage. I couldn't get over the fact that I could use it all the way up to Manchester airport on the train and on the flight to Fosdem and in Brussels for some hours after I arrived. Ran for eight hours on that day from a full charge. I got the 2Gb RAM upgrade from Ebay for not much. New batteries don't cost a lot either. 6. How has the build quality stood up Thus far, awesome. It's the new seashell style from Asus, so it's much sleeker than the plasticky early versions. The only thing I didn't like was the shiny case that attracts finger prints. Mine has a protection cover which you can get hold of from anywhere. Richard www.sheflug.org.uk -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] mount LVM from Ubuntu live CD
I've just installed a persistent 64 bit Ubuntu karmic koala on a USB memory stick using the built in live cd creator. I could then install additional packages like skype and flash player and still have them there after a reboot. (the purpose of all this exercise was to test Linux hardware support at the dell kiosk - worked a treat). Just make sure you have all the packages required to make LVM2 work. Good luck, Amos On 2/19/10, david da...@kenpro.com.au wrote: Can it be done? All the instructions I've found on the net require installation of lvm2 - not sure this is practical on Live CD, even if it was connected to the net, which it isn't. The computer belongs to a club (I haven't had direct access to it yet) - the administrator has vanished and taken the password with him and the drive is now at least partly corrupted and won't boot without a root password. fstab tells me it's LVM. OS is Fedora 7.x. Would a Fedora live CD mount it? DSL maybe? I don't have either but would get one if it worked. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Testing glue records
At the beginning of this saga I had a server in America that I called ns1.domain.com and ns2.domain.com. After this I decided to become patriotic (with the help of some sluggers suggestions) and moved to a host in Sydney, this server became ns3.domain.com and ns4.domain.com. My problem is that it's time to move yet again and I wanted to go back to ns1.domain.com and ns2.domain.com but this doesn't seem to work. My registrar assures me they've set the glue records up properly but I can't get it to resolve. The host has set the reverse DNS up as I can confirm that with host 123.123.123.123 which returns ns1.domain.com What I'm after is any known way to test the glue records are in fact set up properly and if they are, what else could I have missed? All help much appreciated. Regards, Ashley attachment: ashley.vcf-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Testing glue records
On 19/02/2010, at 11:12 PM, Ashley Glenday wrote: What I'm after is any known way to test the glue records are in fact set up properly and if they are, what else could I have missed? I find http://www.intodns.com/ handy for debugging dns issues. -- http://chesterton.id.au/blog/ http://barrang.com.au/linux/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Testing glue records
Thanks Michael, I've used intodns for testing the servers when they were functioning but they need a working domain name to give the report. My records don't show up anywhere that I've been able to find. Regards, Ashley Glenday * The time for my yearly haircut is coming around again (March 11th-13th). If anyone wants to sponsor me they can make a tax deductible donation at: http://my.imisfriendraising.com.au/personalPage.aspx?SID=91562 All money raised goes to the Leukemia Foundation. * ** I will be out of the country between 1st April and 20th April. During this time I can still be reached by email, but will be without mobile contact ** I am now offering after hours services. 7am-9am and 5pm-11pm Weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday. The after hours number is: 02 4786 0736 New charges will apply Telephone support - $50 Remote support - $100 Onsite support - $200 p/h or part thereof On 19/02/10 23:20, Michael Chesterton wrote: On 19/02/2010, at 11:12 PM, Ashley Glenday wrote: What I'm after is any known way to test the glue records are in fact set up properly and if they are, what else could I have missed? I find http://www.intodns.com/ handy for debugging dns issues. attachment: ashley.vcf-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
Tony Sceats tony.sce...@gmail.com writes: Slower, though ... is a bit of a strange claim. Not because it is false, but because the answer is complex: you can, for example, double read speed and halve write speed, using a two disk RAID 1 array ... in the ideal case. I must say I'm curious about this, because I have always assumed that for a RAID 1 the write speed would be roughly the same as a single disk, not halved.. Sorry, you are quite right. It should write at approximately the speed of a single disk, and read at twice the speed. More or less. I shouldn't post while I have a cold, because it makes my thinking bits not working. [...] If this is true, I guess the reason would be that the same data travels over the same bus twice before the operation can be said to be completed, therefore halving your write speed. This is the only point it actually cuts speed below a single disk, and that takes more than two disks even on some of the less good modern systems. Sorry. Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
Nigel Allen wrote: Greetings I want to set up a pair of 1 TB drives on an HP DL145 G3 and I'm looking for suggestions as to the best way to partition them. Would I be best using software RAID and LVM? Given that it's a fairly busy machine (mail server for 40+ users) I'd like to achieve: 1) Speed 2) Reliability 3) Ease of maintenance. Anyone care to take a punt at a layout? TIA Nigel. I wouldn't bother with LVM. Personally I'd set up a 3 disk raid 5 and just partition onto it directly, if you want more room (not likley with 1Tb drives) you can grow the raid 5 array rather than needing to add on another array and join it onto the end. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
On Friday 19 February 2010 19:29:48 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: I want to set up a pair of 1 TB drives on an HP DL145 G3 and I'm looking for suggestions as to the best way to partition them. Would I be best using software RAID and LVM? Given that it's a fairly busy machine (mail server for 40+ users) I'd like to achieve: 1) Speed 2) Reliability 3) Ease of maintenance. Anyone care to take a punt at a layout? In spite of Seagate's paper (... More than an interface) cautioning that multiple disks in a machine will make them fail quicker and be slower nobody seems to heed this. Multiple spindles does increase the number of hardware failures your system will have. Using redundant RAID makes your system tolerant of hardware failures. Balancing these can be complex. :) Slower, though ... is a bit of a strange claim. Not because it is false, but because the answer is complex: you can, for example, double read speed and halve write speed, using a two disk RAID 1 array ... in the ideal case. Is that slower, or faster, or both? Their logic went like this: disk1 seeks to a track and the jolt knocks disk2 off track so disk2 seeks knocking disk1 off track back and forth until both disks are safely on track. Then 1 disk seeks to the next track ... James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
From: Tony Sceats tony.sce...@gmail.com To: slug@slug.org.au Slower, though ... is a bit of a strange claim. Not because it is false, but because the answer is complex: you can, for example, double read speed and halve write speed, using a two disk RAID 1 array ... in the ideal case. I must say I'm curious about this, because I have always assumed that for a RAID 1 the write speed would be roughly the same as a single disk, not halved.. my reasoning being that both writes would occur in parallel, as with the reads.. the difference of course is that the 2 reads in parallel each transfer half the data, but the 2 writes transfers all the data each sure, you may have a little bit of overhead - issuing 2 IO instructions instead of 1, or in the case of a setup where both disks share the same bus (which is not the ideal setup) there would be contention on this bus, but halved? Is it really the case? If this is true, I guess the reason would be that the same data travels over the same bus twice before the operation can be said to be completed, therefore halving your write speed. But then this holds true for the read as well, so that despite issuing an instruction to 2 different disks, each with half the data requested, then you will meet the same contention and the data will get to you with the same speed as 1 disk.. so, if this is right, then RAID 1 compared to a single disk would be something like 1. 2 disks on 2 buses = (approx) half read time, same write time 2. 2 disks on 1 bus = (approx) same read time, double write time I honestly don't know if this is the case or not, I've certaintly never measured it and it may be implementation specific, but if not I'd really like to be shown where this is wrong.. I am inclined to think for raid1: 1. 2 disks on 2 buses = (approx) same read time, same write time 2. 2 disks on 1 bus = (approx) double read time, double write time and for raid0: 1. 2 disks on 2 buses = (approx) half read time, half write time 2. 2 disks on 1 bus = slightly better than same read time and write time The reason I state the above is that I did see a benchmark for one of those SIL680 PCI cards (Dual IDE Channel), most raid0 gain was having 2 individual drives on the individual IDE buss' They did put 4 IDE drive on 2 IDE buss and you got more gain but not as much as 2 drives on their own buss , all compared to 1 drive on one buss of course. I use a Kernel raid setup with 2 disks (Samsung 500GB), raid1 for /boot and raid0 for / and backup with dd to another drive every other week. This is just a desktop nothing too important, Raid 5 seems all the go from what I have read but I do not have the setup or time to look into it.. My raid1 /boot /dev/md1: Timing cached reads: 7612 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3810.62 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 244 MB in 3.01 seconds = 81.09 MB/sec 1 drive from the raid1 array above: /dev/sda1: Timing cached reads: 7490 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3749.14 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 248 MB in 3.02 seconds = 82.01 MB/sec My raid0 / /dev/md3: Timing cached reads: 7770 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3889.21 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 486 MB in 3.00 seconds = 161.79 MB/sec Some guy had a new WD drive and got 100MB/sec from a single drive so expect 200 MB/sec from 2 (Sata2) ... haven't seen a Sata3 drive yet. 1 drive from the raid0 md3 array above: /dev/sda3: Timing cached reads: 7612 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3810.57 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 256 MB in 3.01 seconds = 84.99 MB/sec These read-times were all done with: hdparm -tT /dev/(device) Anyone know a good non destructive write test for benchmarking HDD ? Hope this helps Brett -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
- Brett Coady bc196...@yahoo.com.au wrote: These read-times were all done with: hdparm -tT /dev/(device) Anyone know a good non destructive write test for benchmarking HDD ? Hope this helps Brett Bonnie++ is what we use. You can use IOzone if you like complex charts. hdparm isn't great for this sort of thing. Also, back to the one of the other suggestions - don't use RAID5. If you only have 3 disks, use RAID1 and 1 hotspare. They don't make disks like they used to, and RAID5 and MTBF stats meant that the chance of having a failure during a rebuild is too high. RAID5 is dead to me. RAID10 if you have enough disks, or RAID1 when you don't. and use LVM. It makes for growing/shrinking/chopping much easier. You can't shrink XFS. Be careful shrinking ext3. http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/10/21/2126252.shtml and don't backup to tape. Buy lots of harddrives, and expect to buy more of them. Dave -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
Brett Coady bc196...@yahoo.com.au writes: [I *hope* I got the citations right here; for some reason your email didn't include any of the normal bits in text you cited. :/ ] From: Tony Sceats tony.sce...@gmail.com To: slug@slug.org.au Slower, though ... is a bit of a strange claim. Not because it is false, but because the answer is complex: you can, for example, double read speed and halve write speed, using a two disk RAID 1 array ... in the ideal case. I must say I'm curious about this, because I have always assumed that for a RAID 1 the write speed would be roughly the same as a single disk, not halved.. [...] I use a Kernel raid setup with 2 disks (Samsung 500GB), raid1 for /boot and raid0 for / and backup with dd to another drive every other week. This is just a desktop nothing too important, Raid 5 seems all the go from what I have read but I do not have the setup or time to look into it.. RAID5 has different performance trade-offs, and can have a (potentially substantial) write penalty with the cheap-but-large consumer drives, under random I/O. Watch out — getting them fast, rather than just big, is hard. My raid1 /boot /dev/md1: Timing cached reads: 7612 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3810.62 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 244 MB in 3.01 seconds = 81.09 MB/sec 1 drive from the raid1 array above: /dev/sda1: Timing cached reads: 7490 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3749.14 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 248 MB in 3.02 seconds = 82.01 MB/sec The Linux RAID1 driver only balances reads between processes, not inside a single process, so your average read performance for each application is going to be the same as the slowest disk included. The RAID10 driver, which can work with only two disks, does stripe reads for a single process; if you want that, consider using that driver instead. Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
- Original Message From: Dave Kempe d...@sol1.com.au To: Brett Coady bc196...@yahoo.com.au Cc: slug@slug.org.au Sent: Sat, 20 February, 2010 8:10:00 AM Subject: Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM - Brett Coady wrote: These read-times were all done with: hdparm -tT /dev/(device) Anyone know a good non destructive write test for benchmarking HDD ? Hope this helps Brett Bonnie++ is what we use. You can use IOzone if you like complex charts. hdparm isn't great for this sort of thing. The trouble with Bonnie and IOzone is that they test the filesystem , for my example I was looking at the raw disk speed for raid results. Also, back to the one of the other suggestions - don't use RAID5. If you only have 3 disks, use RAID1 and 1 hotspare. They don't make disks like they used to, and RAID5 and MTBF stats meant that the chance of having a failure during a rebuild is too high. RAID5 is dead to me. RAID10 if you have enough disks, or RAID1 when you don't. and use LVM. It makes for growing/shrinking/chopping much easier. You can't shrink XFS. Be careful shrinking ext3. http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/10/21/2126252.shtml and don't backup to tape. Buy lots of harddrives, and expect to buy more of them. Dave That's handy to know about RAID5, thanks There are 2 other things I can suggest. 1: I use those cheap Caddies you get from the markets and noticed upon installing 2 Hard Disk in 2 of them they vibrated as they are both parallel.(well they are cheap and I only use them for backup) Upon installing my 2 Disk for RAID without caddies, I staggered them so the center axis is offset (trying to destroy some inertial cavitation here). If you are real keen you may like to mount one of the drive upside down on the same axis counter-acting inertial vibrations. (Going a bit too far ? see below.) There was a RAID array with 20+ drives stacked one on top one another, and when turned on the system tipped over due to inertia. If you use Gentoo this is known as Larry the Cow Tipping and like normal Cow Tipping is frowned upon. (yes, I know in the BIOS they have staggered Drive start for some systems, Larry just tips slower). 2: I had an issue when setting up RAID that I always lost 1MB or 2 from one of the HDD, this concerned me and every time I repartitioned and rebooted I lost it again, the second drive was fine.? After giving up and leaving the last 2 MB on both drives untouched to keep them the same size I was happy. (sort of) I have since that learnt that some Motherboard backup the BIOS to the end HDD and have a setting to do so. My motherboard has no option for this and has dual BIOS anyway but it still appears to do it! Regards Brett -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Testing glue records
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:12:44PM +1100, Ashley Glenday wrote: At the beginning of this saga I had a server in America that I called ns1.domain.com and ns2.domain.com. After this I decided to become patriotic (with the help of some sluggers suggestions) and moved to a host in Sydney, this server became ns3.domain.com and ns4.domain.com. My problem is that it's time to move yet again and I wanted to go back to ns1.domain.com and ns2.domain.com but this doesn't seem to work. My registrar assures me they've set the glue records up properly but I can't get it to resolve. The host has set the reverse DNS up as I can confirm that with host 123.123.123.123 which returns ns1.domain.com What I'm after is any known way to test the glue records are in fact set up properly and if they are, what else could I have missed? So for google If I wanted to check I would do jo...@zoot:~$ dig ns google.com ;; ANSWER SECTION: google.com. 296819 IN NS ns4.google.com. google.com. 296819 IN NS ns2.google.com. google.com. 296819 IN NS ns1.google.com. google.com. 296819 IN NS ns3.google.com. jo...@zoot:~$ dig soa com ;; ANSWER SECTION: com.789 IN SOA a.gtld-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 1266627161 1800 900 604800 86400 jo...@zoot:~$ dig a ns1.google.com. @a.gtld-servers.net. ;; ANSWER SECTION: ns1.google.com. 172800 IN A 216.239.32.10 If there is no glue record the ANSWER section will be empty and you'll get a WARNING about recusrion being disabled. Cheers, John -- John Blog http://www.inodes.org LCA2010 http://www.lca2010.org.nz -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Testing glue records
Thanks John, I've tried that too, the only thing that comes up is ns3 and ns4. Out of curiosity, could it be something to do with the fact that I used to have ns1 and ns2 set up on an old server and those records haven't been removed from the tld servers? This level of DNS is something I do so infrequently I end up having to relearn it all over again. Regards, Ashley Glenday * The time for my yearly haircut is coming around again (March 11th-13th). If anyone wants to sponsor me they can make a tax deductible donation at: http://my.imisfriendraising.com.au/personalPage.aspx?SID=91562 All money raised goes to the Leukemia Foundation. * ** I will be out of the country between 1st April and 20th April. During this time I can still be reached by email, but will be without mobile contact ** I am now offering after hours services. 7am-9am and 5pm-11pm Weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday. The after hours number is: 02 4786 0736 New charges will apply Telephone support - $50 Remote support - $100 Onsite support - $200 p/h or part thereof On 20/02/10 11:56, John Ferlito wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:12:44PM +1100, Ashley Glenday wrote: At the beginning of this saga I had a server in America that I called ns1.domain.com and ns2.domain.com. After this I decided to become patriotic (with the help of some sluggers suggestions) and moved to a host in Sydney, this server became ns3.domain.com and ns4.domain.com. My problem is that it's time to move yet again and I wanted to go back to ns1.domain.com and ns2.domain.com but this doesn't seem to work. My registrar assures me they've set the glue records up properly but I can't get it to resolve. The host has set the reverse DNS up as I can confirm that with host 123.123.123.123 which returns ns1.domain.com What I'm after is any known way to test the glue records are in fact set up properly and if they are, what else could I have missed? So for google If I wanted to check I would do jo...@zoot:~$ dig ns google.com ;; ANSWER SECTION: google.com. 296819 IN NS ns4.google.com. google.com. 296819 IN NS ns2.google.com. google.com. 296819 IN NS ns1.google.com. google.com. 296819 IN NS ns3.google.com. jo...@zoot:~$ dig soa com ;; ANSWER SECTION: com.789 IN SOA a.gtld-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 1266627161 1800 900 604800 86400 jo...@zoot:~$ dig a ns1.google.com. @a.gtld-servers.net. ;; ANSWER SECTION: ns1.google.com. 172800 IN A 216.239.32.10 If there is no glue record the ANSWER section will be empty and you'll get a WARNING about recusrion being disabled. Cheers, John attachment: ashley.vcf-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
On 20/02/2010, at 11:53 AM, Brett Coady bc196...@yahoo.com.au wrote: The trouble with Bonnie and IOzone is that they test the filesystem , for my example I was looking at the raw disk speed for raid results. Well if you keep the kernel and filesystem identical between runs you end up benchmarking the hardware. Still useful for the purpose of comparision. I have since that learnt that some Motherboard backup the BIOS to the end HDD and have a setting to do so. My motherboard has no option for this and has dual BIOS anyway but it still appears to do it! The difference in drive size is not the dual bios at all. And leaving a buffer at the end of drives when using software raid is a good idea cos diffrences in drive geometry will always happen. Dave -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Netbooks .... Again (7 months on) Are you still happy?
Kyle wrote: 1. What you bought Kogan Agora Pro 2. Are you still happy Yes, although the price advantage that was present when I bought it is much less evident now. 3. How has the battery life stood up over the 6m. It's remained unchanged. 4. What sort of battery life are you getting (esp. now after 6 months) With stock hardware I get about 4.5 hours of solid use from a charge. I have a CF-card-based replacement for my internal hard-drive that I intend to try out to see what difference that makes at some point or another. 5. How easy was it to get your chosen Linux up and running (this is of course relative to the person - Me. I'm no genius, but I can figure it out if I have to) No brainer, it came with an Ubuntu derivative pre-installed, but I rebuilt it with the Ubuntu Netbook remix anyway. 6. How has the build quality stood up Just fine, no sign of any breakages or weakness of any sort. 7. What sorts of quirks have you discovered The WiFi seems a little deaf and the touchpad is in an occasionally annoying position. regards Terry -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Netbooks .... Again (7 months on) Are you still happy?
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:56:14 +1100 Terry Dawson t...@animats.net wrote: SNIP 4. What sort of battery life are you getting (esp. now after 6 months) With stock hardware I get about 4.5 hours of solid use from a charge. I have a CF-card-based replacement for my internal hard-drive that I intend to try out to see what difference that makes at some point or another. How well does CF work as a hard drive replacement? I see mixed comments when I googled for it. What kind of adaptive gear do you need. I have an Apple iBook G4 and the hard drive is showing some damage - it is an IDE drive. Would like to replace with something solid state, but don't really know where to start. Cheers, Alan 5. How easy was it to get your chosen Linux up and running (this is of course relative to the person - Me. I'm no genius, but I can figure it out if I have to) No brainer, it came with an Ubuntu derivative pre-installed, but I rebuilt it with the Ubuntu Netbook remix anyway. 6. How has the build quality stood up Just fine, no sign of any breakages or weakness of any sort. 7. What sorts of quirks have you discovered The WiFi seems a little deaf and the touchpad is in an occasionally annoying position. regards Terry -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: 04 2748 6206 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM
From: David Kempe d...@sol1.com.au To: Brett Coady bc196...@yahoo.com.au Cc: slug@slug.org.au slug@slug.org.au Sent: Sat, 20 February, 2010 12:20:43 PM Subject: Re: [SLUG] RAID and LVM On 20/02/2010, at 11:53 AM, Brett Coady bc196...@yahoo.com.au wrote: The trouble with Bonnie and IOzone is that they test the filesystem , for my example I was looking at the raw disk speed for raid results. Well if you keep the kernel and filesystem identical between runs you end up benchmarking the hardware. Still useful for the purpose of comparision. That is true , however the original poster was asking about RAID and partitioning , He hadn't mention File-systems and that's is why I did the benchmarking the way I did to try and shed some light on Raid gains/loses and speed. I have since that learnt that some Motherboard backup the BIOS to the end HDD and have a setting to do so. My motherboard has no option for this and has dual BIOS anyway but it still appears to do it! The difference in drive size is not the dual bios at all. And leaving a buffer at the end of drives when using software raid is a good idea cos diffrences in drive geometry will always happen. Are you sure about this, I spent quite a bit of time trying to work out where my missing 1MB had gone? On initial Boot the Drives had exactly the same size on both. Also to try and test the problem I actually swapped the drives over and guess what, I lost 1 MB from the opposite drive! (yeah I checked the electronic serial numbers) Ahhh, Upon further investigation I find something interesting and I am not alone! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_protected_area An application called Sleuthkit tells me more. This is handy to know for someone setting RAID up, they even give examples on how to remove stubborn HPA regards Brett -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
