Hi Everyone,
I'm having difficulty getting my SCSI hard disks to preform
well. I don't know what tools are available to help me diagnose
this issue, or if there are specific tweaks that I need to make.
Attached is the output from dmesg.
The reason why I say that performance is slow is that wh
> I wouldn't say that dd is the greatest benchmarking tool. You
may want to
> try benchmarks/rawio.
I'll check that out just for kicks, but I _actually want_ to
write zeros to the drive first, not just as a benchmark. The
reasoning for this is that I'm trying to create a dedicated box
to format HD
> Aha. Check the WCE bit to see if your write cache is enabled
on the
> disk
Bingo:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da0 bs=64k &
[1] 2253
# iostat -K -w 1 da0
tty da0 cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id
2 38 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 1 0 98
0 43 64.00 2
Hello,
I've checked the H/W compatibiltity list for 4.9 for any SCSI
to IDE bridges (IDE drive to SCSI bus), and I don't see any
mention of these type of devices. I would think that they would
be supported though, because they should just appear as HDDs. I
plan on at least to try one out, reg
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You want to deny physical connectivity to the LAN, from a
particular host, period.
You might try setting up a quasi-switch with bridge (kernel
option see LINT), plug a whole bunch of network cards in, and
downing the interfaces when they don't pay... It would be a
It is possible.
I have 2 routers. Each has 3 interfaces.
If :
I plug 2 interfaces on each to the other router,
the third interface on each is for the local subnet,
a route to the non-local subnet is added to each of the 2
interfaces on each router
Subnet A-A===B-Subnet B
Will the kernel load b
Hi,
I have posted an ealier question to this effect that could
provide more context:
(wrapped)
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=827757+0+archive/2003/freebsd-questions/20030713.freebsd-questions
I would like to know where I can find out if FreeBSD spreads the
network load across 2
> Do you want to do trunking for extra bandwidth, for redundancy
in case of
> failure...what problem are you trying to solve?
Exactly... Both. Ok, so let's make this a little more complex.
Here's how I envisioned this working.
Subnet A 192.168.0.0/24
Subnet B 192.168.1.0/24
Subnet C 192.168.2.0
