Re: poor SATA performance under 2.6.11 (with < 2.6.11 is OK)?

[Andre Bender <andre.bender@gmx.de>]

-----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 = good performance, and possibly data corruption?
> 

That's what has already been told some posts ago. The kernel developers
don't blacklist anything that works just for fun. There seems to be a
serious problem when combining this pieces of hardware so the
combination is blacklisted to get it working properly but with (much)
less performance.

cu

- --

- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d-(--) s++:-a- c++(++) UL+++(+) P--- L++ ! EW++ !N !o K? w--- O@ M?
V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP+++ t+ 5++ X++ R+ tv+ b++ DI- D+ Ge+++ hr(-) y+(+)
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

They say that when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear
demonic voices...
But that's nothing - When you play it forwards it installs Windows

- -------------------------------

My public key can be found at
     http://www.keyserver.net
my fingerprint is
     302C FD91 2CE0 487E E086 EEBC D8D9 2865 E32F 4D56
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCX24m29koZeMvTVYRAharAJ4r4aCCuDNt+B0zjv88tGgOEQIGMACgsVYm
xibnwIYSV+8LUcnXaMImorE=
=NHfy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----