Quoting Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I originally intended to implement a sliding flush delay based on disk
> load.
> This turned out to be a lot of work for a hard-to-discern benefit. So
> the
> current approach has just two delays: .1 second and whatever the bdflush
>
> delay is
Quoting Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I originally intended to implement a sliding flush delay based on disk
load.
This turned out to be a lot of work for a hard-to-discern benefit. So
the
current approach has just two delays: .1 second and whatever the bdflush
delay is set to.
Quoting Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 1. Transfer of the first 100-150MB is very fast (9.8MB/sec via 100Mb
> Ethernet,
> > close to wire speed). At this point Linux has yet to write the first
> byte to
> > disk. OK, this might be an exaggerated, but very little disk activity
> has
> >
Quoting Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> After the initial burst, the system should stabilise,
> starting the writeout of pages before we run low on
> memory. How to handle the initial burst is something
> I haven't figured out yet ... ;)
Well, at least I know that this is expected with the
Hi All,
I have been using the 2.4.x kernels since the 2.4.0-test days on my Dell 5000e
laptop with 320MB of RAM and have experienced first hand many of the problems
other users have reported with the VM system in 2.4. Most of these problems
have been only minor anoyances and I have continued
Hi All,
I have been using the 2.4.x kernels since the 2.4.0-test days on my Dell 5000e
laptop with 320MB of RAM and have experienced first hand many of the problems
other users have reported with the VM system in 2.4. Most of these problems
have been only minor anoyances and I have continued
Quoting Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
After the initial burst, the system should stabilise,
starting the writeout of pages before we run low on
memory. How to handle the initial burst is something
I haven't figured out yet ... ;)
Well, at least I know that this is expected with the VM,
Quoting Mark Hahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. Transfer of the first 100-150MB is very fast (9.8MB/sec via 100Mb
Ethernet,
close to wire speed). At this point Linux has yet to write the first
byte to
disk. OK, this might be an exaggerated, but very little disk activity
has
occured on my
Quoting Ion Badulescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
>
> > OK, I tried your patch, it did fix the problem where pump wouldn't
> > pull an IP address, but I'm still having the problem where my ping
> > times go nuts. I've attached an
Whoops!! Sorry, forgot the attachment.
Thanks,
Tom
> Both of these are slow, actually. I'm getting 7.5-8MB/s when receiving
> from a 100Mbit box (tulip or starfire, doesn't seem to matter).
> Transmitting is still slow for me, but that is most likely a different
> problem -- and I'm looking
> Both of these are slow, actually. I'm getting 7.5-8MB/s when receiving
> from a 100Mbit box (tulip or starfire, doesn't seem to matter).
> Transmitting is still slow for me, but that is most likely a different
> problem -- and I'm looking into it.
Yeah, I knew they were both slow, but at
Both of these are slow, actually. I'm getting 7.5-8MB/s when receiving
from a 100Mbit box (tulip or starfire, doesn't seem to matter).
Transmitting is still slow for me, but that is most likely a different
problem -- and I'm looking into it.
Yeah, I knew they were both slow, but at least
Whoops!! Sorry, forgot the attachment.
Thanks,
Tom
Both of these are slow, actually. I'm getting 7.5-8MB/s when receiving
from a 100Mbit box (tulip or starfire, doesn't seem to matter).
Transmitting is still slow for me, but that is most likely a different
problem -- and I'm looking into
Quoting Ion Badulescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
OK, I tried your patch, it did fix the problem where pump wouldn't
pull an IP address, but I'm still having the problem where my ping
times go nuts. I've attached an example, it's 100% repeatable on my
Quoting Ion Badulescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 2.4.4-ac11 -- mostly works fine -- minor problems awaking from sleep
>
> Can you run some performance testing with this driver, though? The
> speed
> of ftp transfers in both directions would be a good measure. The
> reason
> I'm asking is because
Quoting Ion Badulescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2.4.4-ac11 -- mostly works fine -- minor problems awaking from sleep
Can you run some performance testing with this driver, though? The
speed
of ftp transfers in both directions would be a good measure. The
reason
I'm asking is because we saw
> The patch does only one thing: it instructs the card not to negotiate
> full-duplex modes, because (for undocumented and yet unexplained
> reasons)
> full-duplex modes don't work well on this card.
>
> If you had problems before, then their cause is most likely elsewhere.
> 1-second ping time
> 2.4.5-ac9
> o Fix xircom_cb problems with some cisco kit (Ion Badulescu)
I'm not sure what this is supposed to fix, but it makes my Xircom
RBEM56G-100 almost useless on my network at the office. Actually, I can't
quite blame just this patch, it only makes the problem worse, the driver
from
2.4.5-ac9
o Fix xircom_cb problems with some cisco kit (Ion Badulescu)
I'm not sure what this is supposed to fix, but it makes my Xircom
RBEM56G-100 almost useless on my network at the office. Actually, I can't
quite blame just this patch, it only makes the problem worse, the driver
from
The patch does only one thing: it instructs the card not to negotiate
full-duplex modes, because (for undocumented and yet unexplained
reasons)
full-duplex modes don't work well on this card.
If you had problems before, then their cause is most likely elsewhere.
1-second ping time is
> Does the attached patch work for you?
>
> serial.c still has the basic problem that there is a logical disconnect
> between the pci_boards list and the pci-device-id list: any device
> which is not PCI_CLASS_COMMUNICATION_SERIAL or
> PCI_CLASS_COMMUNICATION_MODEM will not get scanned. The
Does the attached patch work for you?
serial.c still has the basic problem that there is a logical disconnect
between the pci_boards list and the pci-device-id list: any device
which is not PCI_CLASS_COMMUNICATION_SERIAL or
PCI_CLASS_COMMUNICATION_MODEM will not get scanned. The solution
Actually, I do have a similar problem that I've been unable to track down
100%. Under 2.4.x when I run the modem on my Xircom Cardbus 10/100
Ethernet/56K Modem combo card (installed in a Dell 5000e with 650Mhz Pentium
III) I get a fair number of dropped packets at 115Kbps, enough to cause
Actually, I do have a similar problem that I've been unable to track down
100%. Under 2.4.x when I run the modem on my Xircom Cardbus 10/100
Ethernet/56K Modem combo card (installed in a Dell 5000e with 650Mhz Pentium
III) I get a fair number of dropped packets at 115Kbps, enough to cause
> [1.] Loopback device hangs on mount command.
>
> [2.] Mounting a loopback device hangs the process. Eg. Issuing
>
> losetup /dev/loop0 fsimg
> mount /dev/loop0 /mnt
>
> will hang at the mount command. The mount process cannot be
> killed, nor can the loopback device be
[1.] Loopback device hangs on mount command.
[2.] Mounting a loopback device hangs the process. Eg. Issuing
losetup /dev/loop0 fsimg
mount /dev/loop0 /mnt
will hang at the mount command. The mount process cannot be
killed, nor can the loopback device be destroyed
>> It seems something changed in 2.4.3-pre7 (against which I applied your
>> patch) so that it doesn't make a difference. On startup I now get this,
>> which I am CC:ing as per printk to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Mar 24 23:59:05 princess cardmgr[374]: initializing socket 1
>> Mar 24 23:59:05
It seems something changed in 2.4.3-pre7 (against which I applied your
patch) so that it doesn't make a difference. On startup I now get this,
which I am CC:ing as per printk to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 24 23:59:05 princess cardmgr[374]: initializing socket 1
Mar 24 23:59:05 princess kernel:
> Tom Sightler wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I saw a discussion on this list about this problem earlier, but could
not
> > find that it had actually been resolved.
>
> That was me :) and no, it doesn't work. Jeff Garzik asked me to enable
> a couple
Tom Sightler wrote:
Hi all,
I saw a discussion on this list about this problem earlier, but could
not
find that it had actually been resolved.
That was me :) and no, it doesn't work. Jeff Garzik asked me to enable
a couple debug #defines in serial.c, apply patches to serial.c
Hi all,
I saw a discussion on this list about this problem earlier, but could not
find that it had actually been resolved.
With the removal of serial_cb from the 2.4.3pre kernels I can no longer use
the modem of my Xircom adapter. According to the posts in the other thread
serial.c should now
Hi all,
I saw a discussion on this list about this problem earlier, but could not
find that it had actually been resolved.
With the removal of serial_cb from the 2.4.3pre kernels I can no longer use
the modem of my Xircom adapter. According to the posts in the other thread
serial.c should now
> > tested in previous kernels. Then again my dmesg says the BIOS is
probably
> > buggy (same BIOS though as mentioned in those posts). Apmd does notice
the
> > change from mains to battery and vice versa (I have disabled Speedstep
so now
> > everything actually survives this transition :-).
> >
> >1. What is the largest block device that linux currently supports? i.e.
> >Can I create a single 1TB volume on my storage device and expect linux to
> >see it and be able to format it?
>
> Checkout the GFS project for really large filesystems with a high
capability
> of "fail safe"
Hi All,
I'm seeking information in regards to a large Linux implementation we are
planning. We have been evaluating many storage options and I've come up
with some questions that I have been unable to answer as far as Linux
capabilities in regards to storage.
We are looking at storage systems
Hi All,
I'm seeking information in regards to a large Linux implementation we are
planning. We have been evaluating many storage options and I've come up
with some questions that I have been unable to answer as far as Linux
capabilities in regards to storage.
We are looking at storage systems
1. What is the largest block device that linux currently supports? i.e.
Can I create a single 1TB volume on my storage device and expect linux to
see it and be able to format it?
Checkout the GFS project for really large filesystems with a high
capability
of "fail safe" configuration.
> Its an awfully large diff, so it can be fetched from:
>
> http://www.zabbo.net/maestro/patches/2.2.18-mega-1.diff.gz
>
> if this works I'll officially submit it and make the same sorts of
> changes to 2.4.
I'd love to test this on my Dell 5000e (Maestro 2E) but it's pretty
impractical for me
Its an awfully large diff, so it can be fetched from:
http://www.zabbo.net/maestro/patches/2.2.18-mega-1.diff.gz
if this works I'll officially submit it and make the same sorts of
changes to 2.4.
I'd love to test this on my Dell 5000e (Maestro 2E) but it's pretty
impractical for me to
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: LILO error with 2.4.3-pre1...
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:19:28 -0600,
> "Steven J. Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Owens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: LILO error with 2.4.3-pre1...
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:19:28 -0600,
"Steven J. Hill" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no idea why
> In your message of: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:55:07 CST, you write:
> >
> >Careful, you're overwriting ACPI data now (and using it as normal RAM).
>
> Hmm, I guess that would be bad.
>
> >Can you try one of a) LILO b) a fixed version of grub c) this patch ?
>
> I tried LILO and the problem did indeed
In your message of: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:55:07 CST, you write:
Careful, you're overwriting ACPI data now (and using it as normal RAM).
Hmm, I guess that would be bad.
Can you try one of a) LILO b) a fixed version of grub c) this patch ?
I tried LILO and the problem did indeed go away
> I took your advice and used the kernel drivers from 2.4.2. I built
> the Cardbus and i82365 drivers into the kernel. This shows the exact
> same behavior, after a power-on reboot I get:
You don't need the i82365 driver, only the Cardbus (yenta) driver. I don't
think this would cause your
I took your advice and used the kernel drivers from 2.4.2. I built
the Cardbus and i82365 drivers into the kernel. This shows the exact
same behavior, after a power-on reboot I get:
You don't need the i82365 driver, only the Cardbus (yenta) driver. I don't
think this would cause your
> > There seem to be several reports of reiserfs falling over when memory is
> > low. It seems to be undetermined if this problem is actually reiserfs
or MM
> > related, but there are other threads on this list regarding similar
issues.
> > This would explain why the same disk would work on a
>> >I'm building a firewall on a P133 with 48 MB of memory using RH 7.0,
>> >latest updates, etc. and kernel 2.4.1.
>> >I've built a customized install of RH (~200MB) which I untar onto
the
>> >system after building my raid arrays, etc. via a Rescue CD which I
>> >created
I'm building a firewall on a P133 with 48 MB of memory using RH 7.0,
latest updates, etc. and kernel 2.4.1.
I've built a customized install of RH (~200MB) which I untar onto
the
system after building my raid arrays, etc. via a Rescue CD which I
created using Timo's
There seem to be several reports of reiserfs falling over when memory is
low. It seems to be undetermined if this problem is actually reiserfs
or MM
related, but there are other threads on this list regarding similar
issues.
This would explain why the same disk would work on a different
> > My testing showed that the lowlatency patches abosolutely destroy a
system
> > thoughput under heavy disk IO.
>
> I'm surprised - I've been keeping an eye on that.
>
> Here's the result of a bunch of back-to-back `dbench 12' runs
> on UP, alternating with and without LL:
It's interesting
My testing showed that the lowlatency patches abosolutely destroy a
system
thoughput under heavy disk IO.
I'm surprised - I've been keeping an eye on that.
Here's the result of a bunch of back-to-back `dbench 12' runs
on UP, alternating with and without LL:
It's interesting that your
Quoting "Gord R. Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Jeremy Jackson wrote:
>
> > "Gord R. Lamb" wrote:
> > > in etherchannel bond, running
> linux-2.4.1+smptimers+zero-copy+lowlatency)
Not related to network, but why would you have lowlatency patches on this box?
My testing
Quoting "Gord R. Lamb" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Jeremy Jackson wrote:
"Gord R. Lamb" wrote:
in etherchannel bond, running
linux-2.4.1+smptimers+zero-copy+lowlatency)
Not related to network, but why would you have lowlatency patches on this box?
My testing showed that
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Symptoms: The browser (Netscape or Lynx) will not download from remote
> web sites (dynamic ppp connection via external modem).
>
> This looks to be a problem for my PC and the 2.4.x kernel,
It is very interesting that your are having this problem. I have been
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Symptoms: The browser (Netscape or Lynx) will not download from remote
web sites (dynamic ppp connection via external modem).
This looks to be a problem for my PC and the 2.4.x kernel,
It is very interesting that your are having this problem. I have been having
Alan informs me that my mailer digested the last attempt at this post so
here's another attempt from a mailer I'm pretty sure is working correctly.
Another point, I don't take much credit for these patches as they are
largely ripped directly from the ni52 driver, with only minor
modifications.
Alan informs me that my mailer digested the last attempt at this post so
here's another attempt from a mailer I'm pretty sure is working correctly.
Another point, I don't take much credit for these patches as they are
largely ripped directly from the ni52 driver, with only minor
modifications.
Ok all, here's a patch that attempts to make the 3c523 driver work again in 2.4.1. It
includes the following changes:
- fix addresses with bus_to_virt
- reduce xmit buffers from 4 to 1 (puts driver in noop mode like ni52 driver)
- increase recv buffers from 6 to 9 (should help decrease
Ok all, here's a patch that attempts to make the 3c523 driver work again in 2.4.1. It
includes the following changes:
- fix addresses with bus_to_virt
- reduce xmit buffers from 4 to 1 (puts driver in noop mode like ni52 driver)
- increase recv buffers from 6 to 9 (should help decrease
> > > eth0: memprobe, Can't find memory at 0xc!
> > > 3c523.c: No 3c523 cards found
> >
> > Yep. Most probably it needs munging to use isa_memcpy_fromio and the
like
> > or ioremap.
>
> Right... OK I'll leave that to someone else
I have patches that I believe fix this, but their own my
eth0: memprobe, Can't find memory at 0xc!
3c523.c: No 3c523 cards found
Yep. Most probably it needs munging to use isa_memcpy_fromio and the
like
or ioremap.
Right... OK I'll leave that to someone else
I have patches that I believe fix this, but their own my box at home
> I haven't done any sound stuff with 2.4 on my Dell Inspiron 5000e, but I
> have this problem (or a similar one, anyway -- sometimes the sound becomes
> distorted or comes only through one speaker) under both Linux 2.2 and
> Win2K. If it was just Linux, I'd assume it was a driver problem, but
I haven't done any sound stuff with 2.4 on my Dell Inspiron 5000e, but I
have this problem (or a similar one, anyway -- sometimes the sound becomes
distorted or comes only through one speaker) under both Linux 2.2 and
Win2K. If it was just Linux, I'd assume it was a driver problem, but the
> I have doing some testing with kernel 2.4 and I have had constant
problems
> with the eepro100 driver. Under 2.2 it works perfectly but under 2.4 I am
> unable to use more than one card in a server and when I do use one card I
> get errors stating that eth0 reports no recources. Has anyone
I have doing some testing with kernel 2.4 and I have had constant
problems
with the eepro100 driver. Under 2.2 it works perfectly but under 2.4 I am
unable to use more than one card in a server and when I do use one card I
get errors stating that eth0 reports no recources. Has anyone else
> Actually, aren't a number of newer drives getting upwards of 30MB/s?
>
Well, at 80MB/sec these drives are able to come in at an average of about
34MB/s across the board.
> > Therefore, you only exceed the 80MB/sec bus speed if you
> > have more than 4 disks all doing maximum I/O at the same
Actually, aren't a number of newer drives getting upwards of 30MB/s?
Well, at 80MB/sec these drives are able to come in at an average of about
34MB/s across the board.
Therefore, you only exceed the 80MB/sec bus speed if you
have more than 4 disks all doing maximum I/O at the same time.
Hi All,
While trying to determine why my SCSI Ultra 160 drives don't work on my Dell
PowerApp.Web 100 I noticed this section of code:
/*
* This is needed to work around a sequencer bug for now. Regardless
* of the controller in use, if we have a Quantum drive, we need to
Hi All,
While trying to determine why my SCSI Ultra 160 drives don't work on my Dell
PowerApp.Web 100 I noticed this section of code:
/*
* This is needed to work around a sequencer bug for now. Regardless
* of the controller in use, if we have a Quantum drive, we need to
Quoting Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But it broke yours completely, so I guess the hunk should be backed out
> until David has a chance to do a full merge. Are you able to test with
> the latest pcmcia-cs package?
>
> A number of people (esp. David) have spent a lot of time trying to
Hi all,
My Xircom RBEM56G-100 almost completely stops working in the latest test9-pre8
and pre9 versions. It will still get an IP address via DHCP, but that's it, no
pings or anything.
It works mostly correctly with test8 (quits responding when leaving promisuous
mode, and seems to hang under
Hi all,
My Xircom RBEM56G-100 almost completely stops working in the latest test9-pre8
and pre9 versions. It will still get an IP address via DHCP, but that's it, no
pings or anything.
It works mostly correctly with test8 (quits responding when leaving promisuous
mode, and seems to hang under
Quoting Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But it broke yours completely, so I guess the hunk should be backed out
until David has a chance to do a full merge. Are you able to test with
the latest pcmcia-cs package?
A number of people (esp. David) have spent a lot of time trying to make
Hi All,
I'm having a problem related to APM on my Dell Inspiron 5000e (just arrived a few
days ago). I installed Redhat 7.0 and upon reboot was immediately greeted by
scrolling oops screens. The system did boot on up and upon further examintation
I found the errors were caused by the
Hi All,
I'm having a problem related to APM on my Dell Inspiron 5000e (just arrived a few
days ago). I installed Redhat 7.0 and upon reboot was immediately greeted by
scrolling oops screens. The system did boot on up and upon further examintation
I found the errors were caused by the
75 matches
Mail list logo
