IDE or AHCI ?

On 01/06/2012 03:13 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el ,
escribió:

Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
400 days

http://www.jasper.org.uk/uptime.jpg

Now that's a *proper* OS :-)

Indeed.

FWIW, I've been using Solaris for some time to serve files, and have
routinely had uptimes of about a year before something has come along to
force a shutdown -- usually me wanting to change the hardware
configuration or location. I've just switched to OpenIndiana -- hope I
do as well with it.

On 06/01/12 22:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el ,
escribió:

Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
400 days

http://www.jasper.org.uk/uptime.jpg

Now that's a *proper* OS :-)


The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware
machines running for over six years:

http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/netware/2005/1128nw2.html

I read an article once about an IBM mainframe that had been running
non-stop for a couple of decades - but the only original part was the
frame. Everything else had been hot-swapped over time, usually for
preventive maintenance rather than as a result of failure.

David Brown wrote:
On 06/01/12 22:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el ,
escribi?:

Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
400 days

http://www.jasper.org.uk/uptime.jpg

Now that's a *proper* OS :-)


The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware
machines running for over six years:

http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/netware/2005/1128nw2.html

I read an article once about an IBM mainframe that had been running
non-stop for a couple of decades - but the only original part was the
frame. Everything else had been hot-swapped over time, usually for
preventive maintenance rather than as a result of failure.

Indeed. Linux already is in the lower-quality sector. Still
good for many tasks, but not high-reliability or high-uptime.
Just fullfilling the minimal sane requirements for a server OS.

That shows that Windows is properly placed in the "toy" class here.
It never ceases to amaze me that people are willing to settle for
that.

Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

On 7/01/2012 8:11 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Krypsis wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Yousuf Khan wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Yousuf Khan wrote
David Brown wrote

NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has
always had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise
head movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as when
the OS wants to enforce a particular order (for transactions to
filesystem journals, for example). And NCQ doesn't help windows
much either - after all, it only applies when you do more than
one thing at a time.

I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.

The benchmarks clearly show that it does.

Not very dramatically tho.

Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.

You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.

I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is
over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the
disk) and the Active Time is pegged near 100%.

Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I
don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking
about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the
disk queue at any given time.

I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.

This normally happens during boot-up time,

Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

I turn my computers off when not in use. No point using electricity when I'm not using the computer.

Even if you do, you can set it to hibernate or suspend when that
happens so you dont get a full boot when you turn it on again,
and so wont see that disk activity when you turn it on again.

If it is hibernated, a memory image is stored on the hard disk. Ergo,
there needs to be disk activity to restore said image to RAM.

In suspend mode, the computer goes into a low power mode but does not
save data. A power outage whilst in this state will result in data loss.
From Vista onwards, suspend mode will become hibernate on laptops after
3 hours of inactivity (default time).

From my experience, hibernate and suspend, on Windows, is not reliable.

I turn the power off at the UPS but not at the wall socket.

Why waste the power that the UPS uses ?

Because my modem and router also run from it and others in my household
use them wirelessly.

Waiting for a bootup is no great pain.

Its even less of a pain if you set it to hibernate or suspend.

How much of a pain is it to press one (1) button and enter one (1)
password???

I walk past my computer, hit a few buttons, do a few other things and by the time I have finished that, the beast is
up and ready.

He was talking about obsessing about the disk activity.

I was talking about turning off versus hibernate/suspend.

I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown.

More fool you.

You need to get out more.

Friends of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up in knots.

They dont have a clue about how to use it.

Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even suspending or hibernating.

But usually doesnt for various reasons.

Yes, people like me turn them off for various reasons, ie. to save on
power when not in use. Windows, on the other hand, can't go the distance
without a regular reboot.

Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can, any reboot involved should happen when you
arent using the system.

but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the
stratosphere at any time.

Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.

Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same time,and you got major delays.

Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Everyone can see for themselves who doesnt know what they are talking about, child.

True, most people here seem to have worked out that you're a moron.

I have modern fast seeking drives in all my computers bar my Powermac and they ALL bog down when accessed by multiple
programs at the same time.

How odd that mine dont. I dont even bother to have a separate PVR anymore
and I bet you couldnt even work out when its recording in a proper double blind
trial with not being allowed to use the task manager to see whats running etc.

As if I care! I don't even bother with a PVR.

I suggest you do a few simple experiments to prove this to yourself.

Been doing that since before you were even born thanks child.

At 74 years of age, it's a fair guess that I was born a rather long time
before you. Given the childish nature of your arguments, it's fairly
obvious who is the child here.

Do you reckon the seek limitations of mechanical hard drives might be the reason SSDs are so popular in applications
where speed is paramount?

Taint the SEEK speed thats the reason for that, child.

It is ONE of the reasons but not the only one.



--

Krypsis

En el artículo , David Brown
escribió:

The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware
machines running for over six years:

Not difficult for them to achieve, not being internet-facing and thus
not having to have security updates applied every ten minutes.

I installed several Netware networks years ago running on Token Ring.
This was in the days when Ethernet was still installed using thin coax
cable.

I remember a story - possibly urban myth - about a company which called
out a consultancy to fix a Netware server which had gone down. The firm
had ground to a halt as no-one could get any work done. The problem was
no-one knew where it was; it had been up and running so long. They
eventually found it behind a walled-in space which had been created
during building modifications.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 8/01/2012 1:36 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el , David Brown
escribió:

The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware
machines running for over six years:

Not difficult for them to achieve, not being internet-facing and thus
not having to have security updates applied every ten minutes.

I installed several Netware networks years ago running on Token Ring.
This was in the days when Ethernet was still installed using thin coax
cable.

I remember IBM token ring networks back in the 80s... Yech!!

I remember a story - possibly urban myth - about a company which called
out a consultancy to fix a Netware server which had gone down. The firm
had ground to a halt as no-one could get any work done. The problem was
no-one knew where it was; it had been up and running so long. They
eventually found it behind a walled-in space which had been created
during building modifications.



--

Krypsis

On 07/01/12 15:36, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el , David Brown
escribió:

The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware
machines running for over six years:

Not difficult for them to achieve, not being internet-facing and thus
not having to have security updates applied every ten minutes.


Absolutely. When you don't need to update the kernel or other critical
software, then there is no need for downtime other than because of power
cuts, hardware issues, or just because you want to move things around.
I had a Windows NT 4.0 server that was never updated, never crashed
(other than for hardware problems on the power supply), and was never
rebooted except in connection with power cuts or moving it physically.
It was in service for about 10 years before the hardware finally gave up
(though for the last few years the load was very low).

I installed several Netware networks years ago running on Token Ring.
This was in the days when Ethernet was still installed using thin coax
cable.

I remember a story - possibly urban myth - about a company which called
out a consultancy to fix a Netware server which had gone down. The firm
had ground to a halt as no-one could get any work done. The problem was
no-one knew where it was; it had been up and running so long. They
eventually found it behind a walled-in space which had been created
during building modifications.


I heard it was at a university. But I also suspect it is an urban myth
- though not an unrealistic one.

Krypsis wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Krypsis wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Yousuf Khan wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Yousuf Khan wrote
David Brown wrote

NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has
always had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise
head movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as
when the OS wants to enforce a particular order (for
transactions to filesystem journals, for example). And NCQ
doesn't help windows much either - after all, it only applies
when you do more than one thing at a time.

I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.

The benchmarks clearly show that it does.

Not very dramatically tho.

Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.

You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.

I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is
over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on
the disk) and the Active Time is pegged near 100%.

Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or
1.10, but I'm talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue at any given
time.

I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.

This normally happens during boot-up time,

Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

I turn my computers off when not in use. No point using electricity
when I'm not using the computer.

Even if you do, you can set it to hibernate or suspend when that
happens so you dont get a full boot when you turn it on again,
and so wont see that disk activity when you turn it on again.

If it is hibernated, a memory image is stored on the hard disk.

Yes, but you dont get lots of different processes all attempting
drive access simultanously, so you dont get the problem he was
clearly talking about. You just have ONE process restoring the
ram contents from the ONE file on the hard drive, and reading
that linearly too.

Ergo, there needs to be disk activity to restore said image to RAM.

But NOT a number of different processes competing for access to the drive.

In suspend mode, the computer goes into a low power mode but does not save data. A power outage whilst in this state
will result in data loss.

Not with a laptop.

From Vista onwards, suspend mode will become hibernate on laptops after 3 hours of inactivity (default time).

No reason why you have to accept the default setting.

From my experience, hibernate and suspend, on Windows, is not reliable.

You're wrong, as always.

The most you have to do is an occassional full reboot every month or few
depending on how the machine is used, as Win cant go forever without a full reboot.

I turn the power off at the UPS but not at the wall socket.

Why waste the power that the UPS uses ?

Because my modem and router also run from it and others in my household use them wirelessly.

Waiting for a bootup is no great pain.

Its even less of a pain if you set it to hibernate or suspend.

How much of a pain is it to press one (1) button and enter one (1) password???

There is a much longer wait till its performing at full speed again.

I walk past my computer, hit a few buttons, do a few other things
and by the time I have finished that, the beast is up and ready.

He was talking about obsessing about the disk activity.

I was talking about turning off versus hibernate/suspend.

And ignoring his complaint about seeing lots of processes competing for
drive access with a full reboot which you dont bet with hibernate and suspend.

I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown.

More fool you.

You need to get out more.

Nope, I use systems like that all the time thanks child.

Friends of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up in knots.

They dont have a clue about how to use it.

Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even suspending or hibernating.

But usually doesnt for various reasons.

Yes, people like me turn them off for various reasons, ie. to save on power when not in use.

Thats just one way of saving power.

Windows, on the other hand, can't go the distance without a regular reboot.

And that is MUCH less often than every time you stop using the PC.

Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can, any reboot involved should happen when you
arent using the system.

but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the
stratosphere at any time.

Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.

Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same
time,and you got major delays.

Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Everyone can see for themselves who doesnt know what they are talking about, child.

True, most people here seem to have worked out that you're a moron.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.

I have modern fast seeking drives in all my computers bar my
Powermac and they ALL bog down when accessed by multiple programs at the same time.

How odd that mine dont. I dont even bother to have a separate PVR
anymore and I bet you couldnt even work out when its recording in a proper double blind trial with not being allowed
to use the task manager to see whats running etc.

As if I care! I don't even bother with a PVR.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What you may or may not claim to care about in spades.

I suggest you do a few simple experiments to prove this to yourself.

Been doing that since before you were even born thanks child.

At 74 years of age, it's a fair guess that I was born a rather long time before you.

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

Given the childish nature of your arguments, it's fairly obvious who is the child here.

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

Do you reckon the seek limitations of mechanical hard drives might be the reason SSDs are so popular in applications
where speed is paramount?

Taint the SEEK speed thats the reason for that, child.

It is ONE of the reasons

Wrong, as always.

but not the only one.

It aint even one of them, child.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 06:43:09 +1100 "Rod Speed"
wrote in Message id: :

Krypsis wrote
[...]

True, most people here seem to have worked out that you're a moron.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.

Nope, he's right. Everyone here *does* know you're a moron, and you prove
it each and every time you post.

What you need is a team of mental health professionals to keep you away
from your computer long enough to stop embarrassing yourself on usenet.

In article , Krypsis
writes

I remember IBM token ring networks back in the 80s... Yech!!

To be fair, it was a very well thought-out network protocol which beat
the pants off CSMA/CD Ethernet.

The main problem was the prohibitive cost of network cards (often
containing a more powerful processor than the host system) and the MAUs
(concentrators). They suffered from IBM's propensity to over-engineer
everything.

Even though IBM developed it to run at 16Mbps (originally 4) and to use
two tokens instead of one, the advent of cheap Ethernet cards and cheap
UTP cabling eventually killed off Token Ring.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")