Hi,
I installed Plan 9 under Parallels 3 back in November of last year and
it worked without a hitch. I tried to install another copy tonight and
the bitmapped display isn't working in the new one, I just get a pure
black screen after any aux/vga command that it thinks will succeed. I
On Sun Aug 2 05:39:10 EDT 2009, fus...@storytotell.org wrote:
Hi,
I installed Plan 9 under Parallels 3 back in November of last year and
it worked without a hitch. I tried to install another copy tonight and
the bitmapped display isn't working in the new one, I just get a pure
black
Ron, have you researched any long-term wear studies on these flash
drives? I've heard a lot of good things,
but I'm really put off by terms like wear levelling, filesystems
optimized to work around flash's delicateness,
etc.
I'm really interested in any numbers anyone has.
just looking at
it's in COLOR !!! :)
2009/8/2 Russ Cox r...@swtch.com
http://www.ncm.com/Fathom/Comedy/RiffTrax.aspx
Russ
--
С наилучшими пожеланиями
Жилкин Сергей
With best regards
Zhilkin Sergey
Erik,
Thanks for your speedy assistance! I think the two things are closely
interrrelated via the global variable hardscreen. Reverting this file
solved the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if there were something
weird about Parallels' MTRR support, and since this isn't the current
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 14:17, erik quanstromquans...@coraid.com wrote:
assuming honest mtbf numbers, one would expect similar
ures for the same io workload on the same size data set
as mechanical disks. since flash drives are much smaller,
there would obviously be fewer ures per drive. but
Also, are the old sources available online somewhere so I can do this
kind of diff in the future on my own?
you can use history(1) and yesterday(1) against sources.
9fs sources
history -D sourcesdump /n/sources/plan9/sys/src/9/pc/vgavesa.c
-Steve
Erik,
Thanks for your speedy assistance! I think the two things are closely
interrrelated via the global variable hardscreen. Reverting this file
solved the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if there were something
weird about Parallels' MTRR support, and since this isn't the current
2009/8/2 erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/143558/laptop_flash_drives_hit_by_high_failure_rates.html
surprising, no? there are still plenty of reasons to want an
ssd. it just seems that reliablity isn't one of those reasons yet.
The big one for me
erik quanstrom wrote:
just looking at the intel x25-e datasheet, the URE rate
(unrecoverable read error) is the same as enterprise sata
drives at 1e-15, but the mtbf is higher, but within a factor
of two.
assuming honest mtbf numbers, one would expect similar
ures for the same io workload
For the Intel SSD one must also consider:
3.5.4 Write Endurance
32 GB drive supports 1 petabyte of lifetime random writes and 64 GB drive
supports 2 petabyte of lifetime random writes.
That is equivalent to writing the capacity of the SSD 31250 times. At
the specified random 4K write
11 matches
Mail list logo