Andre Bender wrote:
OK so Tomasz Torch suggested that my drive was blacklisted somewhere
after 2.6.8.1 (it's the last kernel on which I have good performance).
Does drive blacklisting = very poor performance?
And no drive blacklisting = good performance, and possibly data corruption?
That's what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>
> OK so Tomasz Torch suggested that my drive was blacklisted somewhere
> after 2.6.8.1 (it's the last kernel on which I have good performance).
>
> Does drive blacklisting = very poor performance?
> And no drive
Chris Wright wrote:
* Tomasz Chmielewski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
or should I wait for 2.6.11.7 (?), where it should be corrected?
well, indeed, a week ago or more :)
Wait, no longer, 2.6.11.7 has been here already ;-) However, nothing in
this area was touched. If there's an outstanding
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
See: http://home-tj.org/m15w/
...but this link just doesn't explain why performance is sooo bad with
2.6.11.x kernels (Timing buffered disk reads at 10-20 MB/sec), and is
just OK with older 2.6 kernels (Timing buffered disk reads even at about
100 MB/sec with 2.6.8.1).
any
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
See: http://home-tj.org/m15w/
...but this link just doesn't explain why performance is sooo bad with
2.6.11.x kernels (Timing buffered disk reads at 10-20 MB/sec), and is
just OK with older 2.6 kernels (Timing buffered disk reads even at about
100 MB/sec with 2.6.8.1).
any
Chris Wright wrote:
* Tomasz Chmielewski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
or should I wait for 2.6.11.7 (?), where it should be corrected?
well, indeed, a week ago or more :)
Wait, no longer, 2.6.11.7 has been here already ;-) However, nothing in
this area was touched. If there's an outstanding
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
OK so Tomasz Torch suggested that my drive was blacklisted somewhere
after 2.6.8.1 (it's the last kernel on which I have good performance).
Does drive blacklisting = very poor performance?
And no drive blacklisting =
Andre Bender wrote:
OK so Tomasz Torch suggested that my drive was blacklisted somewhere
after 2.6.8.1 (it's the last kernel on which I have good performance).
Does drive blacklisting = very poor performance?
And no drive blacklisting = good performance, and possibly data corruption?
That's what
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:08:15AM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> >>The performance under 2.6 kernels is *very* poor (Timing buffered disk
> >>reads never more than 20 MB/sec); under 2.4 it runs quite fine (Timing
> >>buffered disk reads around 60 MB/sec).
> >
> >
> > 2.4 risk data corruption.
* Tomasz Chmielewski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> or should I wait for 2.6.11.7 (?), where it should be corrected?
Wait, no longer, 2.6.11.7 has been here already ;-) However, nothing in
this area was touched. If there's an outstanding issue, please chase it
down, and if it's reasonable
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I have a Silicon Image SIL3112A SATA PCI controller + 2x 200GB, 8MB
Barracuda drives.
Bad combination.
OK, from the link you gave I can see that there might be some problems
with SIL3112 controller + seagate
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> I have a Silicon Image SIL3112A SATA PCI controller + 2x 200GB, 8MB
> Barracuda drives.
Bad combination.
> The performance under 2.6 kernels is *very* poor (Timing buffered disk
> reads never more than 20 MB/sec); under 2.4
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I have a Silicon Image SIL3112A SATA PCI controller + 2x 200GB, 8MB
Barracuda drives.
Bad combination.
The performance under 2.6 kernels is *very* poor (Timing buffered disk
reads never more than 20 MB/sec); under 2.4 it
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I have a Silicon Image SIL3112A SATA PCI controller + 2x 200GB, 8MB
Barracuda drives.
Bad combination.
OK, from the link you gave I can see that there might be some problems
with SIL3112 controller + seagate
* Tomasz Chmielewski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
or should I wait for 2.6.11.7 (?), where it should be corrected?
Wait, no longer, 2.6.11.7 has been here already ;-) However, nothing in
this area was touched. If there's an outstanding issue, please chase it
down, and if it's reasonable
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:08:15AM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
The performance under 2.6 kernels is *very* poor (Timing buffered disk
reads never more than 20 MB/sec); under 2.4 it runs quite fine (Timing
buffered disk reads around 60 MB/sec).
2.4 risk data corruption. 2.6 sata_sil.c
16 matches
Mail list logo
