From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265937AbUBKQsN (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:48:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265939AbUBKQsN (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:48:13 -0500 Received: from libra.i-cable.com ([203.83.111.73]:61325 "HELO libra.i-cable.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265937AbUBKQr7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:47:59 -0500 Message-ID: <004501c3f0ae$ecdd2ec0$b8560a3d@kyle> From: "Kyle" To: "Bas Mevissen" Cc: References: <164601c3ec06$be8bd5a0$b8560a3d@kyle> <40227C20.80404@basmevissen.nl> <167301c3ec0d$4d8508c0$b8560a3d@kyle> <40227D9D.2070704@basmevissen.nl> <168301c3ec0e$24698be0$b8560a3d@kyle> <4023682E.3060809@basmevissen.nl> <001101c3ecf8$b0f50cc0$b8560a3d@kyle> <40274581.4030002@basmevissen.nl> Subject: Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:54:08 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Today I tried with compile the kernel 2.6.1 with: IGNORE word93 Validation BITS (IDEDMA_IVB) = y The result looks a bit better, got 30MB/s at /dev/hda and 37MB/s at /dev/hdc (38MB/s and 55MB/s at kernel 2.4.20) Still very strange, /dev/hda and /dev/hda are exactly same model harddisk. Also, the result still can't compare with my another much slower machine Celeron / ICH4 / 2 x WD 120GB (md1), which got 46MB/s at both /dev/hda and /dev/hdc, Kyle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bas Mevissen" To: "Kyle" Cc: Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:32 PM Subject: Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow > Kyle wrote: > > > Today I tried > > (...) > > This is quite strange. The only thing I can think of is that the > hardware (?) raid1 is causing problems with 2.6. > > Is there a possibility for you to test without it? > > Currently, I don't have a decent PATA disk luyng around, so I cannot > verify anything for you. > > Regards, > > Bas. > > >