Benson Chow wrote:
> Just as a datapoint, my Via IDE chipset (on atb850/kt133) and Promise
> Ultra66 (on 2xpp200/82440FX/PIIX3) works fine with 2.4.0, getting speeds
> about correct:
> Model=QUANTUM FIREBALLP LM30, FwRev=A35.0700
> [snip. unused info cut]
> tDMA={min:120,rec:120}, DMA mod
sec
Maybe a firmware bug...
)
ydsmv
-bc
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:17:01 -0800
> From: Linda Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Florin Andrei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lkml <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Linda Walsh wrote:
> I think we're on to something. I did gen's of the kernel with
[snip]
> The REAL problem was in disk performance. The apm made no difference:
>
> hdparm -t /dev/hda1 /dev/hda3 /dev/hda4 /dev/hda5 /dev/hda7
> 1) 2.2.17
> /dev/hda1: Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 4.76
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Mine was actually out of a stock 2.2.17 -- I tried your patch in an attempt
> to fix a disk problem - but the disk was just going bad and the slow speeds were
> coming from the automatic sector remapping.
>
> pardon my ignorance, but where do you get U
Mine was actually out of a stock 2.2.17 -- I tried your patch in an attempt
to fix a disk problem - but the disk was just going bad and the slow speeds were
coming from the automatic sector remapping.
pardon my ignorance, but where do you get UDMA-100-66?
Here is the hdparm -i output on 2.4:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Linda Walsh wrote:
> >
> > The REAL problem was in disk performance. The apm made no difference:
>
> Same problem here. I had a huge HDD performance drop when upgrading
> from 2.2.18 to 2.4.0
> It's an Intel i815 motherboard, and the HDD
Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> The REAL problem was in disk performance. The apm made no difference:
Same problem here. I had a huge HDD performance drop when upgrading
from 2.2.18 to 2.4.0
It's an Intel i815 motherboard, and the HDD is Ultra-ATA.
--
Florin Andrei
"Saying everything i
I think we're on to something. I did gen's of the kernel with
the following configs: 1) 2.2.17 (w/apm), 2) 2.4(w/apm), 3) 2.4(w/o apm).
The apm seems to be a red herring in terms of actual performance
hit. It seems to count apm time as 'system' time instead of 'idle'.
Kernel gen times were:
1)
8 matches
Mail list logo
