« first day (842 days earlier)      last day (4168 days later) » 

Bob
1:22 AM
Is there anyone here familiar with Intel RST?
 
/
@Bob No, I succesfuly avoided it.
35/38 MB/sec seems slow though.
I downloaded portable version, trying it now on mostly free disk.
Sequential read: 90.33MB/sec. Lower than I had hoped. :(
 
1:47 AM
These are th4e values I got while running the same prog as in your question on a single drive
 
1:59 AM
That is on a 4 drive RAID 5 (I know, not a safe idea to use large drives with RAID5. Not if you want to rebuild them on failure).
Both however have higher seq. reads then seq. writes. Which is not true for your question.
Which indeed puzzles me
 
2:41 AM
I guess :7000170 just dropped in for a minute :(
 
3:18 AM
nice. I e mailed comgateway asking if my payment went through. They e mailed me on a sunday,... and upgraded my shipping for free o0
 
Bob
3:40 AM
@Hennes makes sense if write cache is enabled
but that appears to be the inverse of the setting
which is very weird
@Hennes I went out to buy some SATA cables :\
 
Somehow I always had more SATA cables than I needed. Motherboards used to come with half a dozen of them.
Usually I wished they shipped with less and where a but cheaper.
 
Bob
@Hennes ... ... ...
mine only came with two
 
I think most of my boards came with 6 or 8
 
Bob
and with 6 2.5" bays and 6 5.25" bays (and one eSATA), I really need more
not that all the bays are filled
our other computers are either preassembled (Dell...), laptops or too old to have SATA ports
 
I still do not grok why your write speed is so much higher then other speeds.
In a mirrror you write to both drives. So the limit is the write speed of a drive. And 166MB/sec would be nice. Great even for a 5900 RPM drive. But read speeds at 35 or 38MB/sec. That belongs to an old, slow drive
 
Bob
3:47 AM
@Hennes it's probably writing to the cache
 
Aye, but the cache needs to be flushed.
 
Bob
the read speed is just sad
@Hennes Don't ask me :P
I'm the one asking the question
 
Unless you have more free memory/disk buffer than your test data, the buffers should just fill up, and then things slow down to disk speed
 
Bob
hm
I was doing a 500MB test
if it's caching in RAM for whatever reason...
but then, RAM is not nearly that slow
 
3:50 AM
Yes, but say to got 1GB RAM, maybe 800MB free. If I copy 2TB (or any amount way bigger then those 800MB free RAM) it will start to fill those 800MB. Once that buffer is full it can not accept more without writing it.
Cache access to RAM is orders of magnitude faster
 
Bob
@Hennes Yes, but I have 8 GB of RAM. If this were a RAM cache with no size limit, this would not be so slow (100MB/s is slow for RAM... isn't it?)
 
100MB/sec is HDD speeds. RAM is literally orders of magnitude faster
 
Bob
as for the 35MB/s, when I say 5900RPM i meant "green"
 
Bob
...which is why I'm going to replace them with nice shiny 7200RPM drives :P
in fact, I'l go do that now
 
3:53 AM
ooh
 
Bob
if I suddenly disappear, that means the RAID failed :(
 
they are releasing a minecraft port for the raspberry pi
 
Bob
ok, hot plugging, let's go
 
considering it has trouble running on some modern laptops...
 
Bob
@JourneymanGeek o.O
server or client?
 
3:55 AM
apparently client
though I suspect its a port of the phone version
 
Bob
ok.. wut.
 
Assuming reasonably standard memory (say DDR3-1333, not to old, not to new) you have a bandwidth of 10666MiB/sec.
 
Bob
@Hennes sounds about right from my last memtest
ah crud
 
ahh makes sense
 
Bob
3:56 AM
why are my SATA ports under my graphics card?!
 
Because that way you can load movies really fast. :)
Seriously though: WTF. Why not at the edge of a motherboard.
 
Bob
@Hennes they are
just happen to be at the end of the PCIe x16 slot
which happens to have a slightly long graphics card in it
 
I think I got all my SATA ports at the edge of the motherboard. Out of the way of add-in card. Good for cable management. Hard tor each once the case is assembled
"The amusing 'but does it run Crysis?' question has a cousin:
Huh
When was that ever amusing?
 
Bob
my case is a mess of cables
oh, so that one is port 1
heh, unplug random disk and let RST tell me which it is cause I can't read the port markings on the MB
oh damn
I bought the SATA cables but forgot the molex to sata power adaptors
 
The last time I unplugged drives (to vacuum clean the case) I marked which cable they where on. I messed up.
Luckily it did not matter to which cable I connected them.
 
Bob
4:06 AM
it matters here :\
 
 
2 hours later…
6:29 AM
aww crap
the charger for my electric screwdriver is missing
 
 
2 hours later…
8:54 AM
found it :)
 
 
1 hour later…
Bob
10:13 AM
there we go, one drive transferred with no drama
I hope the other one goes well
 
Bob
10:24 AM
well, my computer just randomly restarted o.O
apparently unplugging the front fan has a 25% (empirical) chance of restarting the computer
 
These links aren't for my mac, because the battery is different than normal laptop. New MacBook Pro have different battery. — Alessandro Minoccheri 2 mins ago
k
 
Bob
sigh
aren't they using LiPo?
@Hennes Getting 150 read, 75 write (sequential) on the new disk :D
rebuilding the other half now, hopefully it won't be much slower than a single disk
it's been quiet here today
 
10:52 AM
@Bob yep
 
o0
@Bob: unplugging it with the computer on or otherwise?
is it instant or does it take a while?
 
Bob
@JourneymanGeek no clue
 
Bob
next time I glanced up
the computer was on the BIOS splash screen
so probably tripped the reset switch or whatever the wiring equivalent is
I probably bumped the power/reset switch wires :P
 
lol
thats plausible
those are momentary switches
 
11:07 AM
 
Ell
11:36 AM
Hi guys :)
who's up for a challenge?
 
Ell
I have 2 monitors connected to my nvidia graphics card, and one connected to my intel integrated graphics card. I have nvidias binary graphics drivers installed, and the 2 monitors work as expected. Alas - my 3rd monitor only works when you do "crtl + F1" (aka a terminal)
getting this to work should be fun :P
it means I have to be running the nvidia driver as well as the intel one at the same time, right?
 
11:57 AM
what OS?
what sorta computer? I think a lot of older, pre SB systems don't let you use the onboard and external cards at once
 
Ell
its linux mint 14
and a sandy bridge i5 2500k iirc
I think I have to write a new entry in xorg.conf, but I'm not sure what the intel driver is called o.O
 
ahh
hmm
I'd ask that as a question, i guess ;p
 
Ell
on the main site?
 
that is a wierd one
yesh
 
Ell
I thought having to write your own xorg.conf was common?
what should I ask? just the name of the intel driver, or about my whole situation?
 
12:02 PM
not really
whole situation, else its a X-Y problem ;)
 
Ell
right okay :)
what I find strange is that in xorg.conf, there is only one monitor definition
 
least on ubuntu, xorg.conf is empty by default ;p
 
Ell
I think I might have a go at writing my own xorg.conf first. It'll be a challenge ;)
ahh I think it's i915
 
@Ell: I wrote my own, alternative is to use xrandr if your driver supports that. Since it is Intel, it probably does.
 
Ell
12:17 PM
right
i've written a test one, wish me luck :P
 
Ell
12:30 PM
aghh this didn't work :P
now I have a single 640 * 480 display across 2 monitors haha
I can't for the life of me get this integrated monitor working >.<
 
@Ell 503 Service Unavailable
 
Ell
ahh it's just come back up
 
its a laptop?
 
Ell
12:47 PM
No, a desktop
 
integrated monitor?
 
Ell
0
Q: Multiple Monitors With Multiple GPUs on Linux (nvidia & intel)

ellMy setup is as follows: Linux Mint 14 x64 Intel Core i5-2500k GeForce GTX 560 Ti Cu II A monitor on the far left connected to the motherboard (integrated graphics on the i5) A central monitor connected to the graphics card A monitor on the far right connected to the graphics card My current x...

 
@Ell It's up and you probably should upgrade to a more recent version like x.org/archive/current
 
Ell
^details :3
 
And does it work without a config?
 
Ell
12:53 PM
errm I haven't actually tried without a config
I will try now
updated the question
I get a mirrored screen of 1024 * 768
 
 
1 hour later…
2:05 PM
anybody here?
 
2:26 PM
Morning all
 
2:45 PM
nothing here but us sheep
 
Bob
@JourneymanGeek baa
 
anybody has an experience with ORACLE database?
Which one of these are free for downloading?
 
* Express Editon*
* Standart Edition One*
* Standart Edition One*
* Enterprise Edition*
 
2:49 PM
I THINK express is free
 
all of them?
 
the tools for working with it are free though
express edition
 
i know that express is free, how abouth other editions?
 
get datamodeller and sql developer
not free;p
 
what?
so what is free and what is not?
Oracle SQL Developer Oracle SQL Developer Data Modeler?
both of these are free also?
i don't need to use it
only study and make a really little project for an university course
 
2:52 PM
Just about all my answers for the last two days have only been on serverfault.com/questions/451238/…
The loner it takes the more convinced I am that it was a damn good question
 
those two are free
and used for working on, and designing your database
datamodeller does an ERD and converts it into ddl
 
so the combination that i need is: Express Editon + Oracle SQL Developer + Oracle SQL Developer Data Modeler?
right?
 
yes
you use express edition for the db.
 
ok thank you
 
then you design the db on data modeller, and use sql developer to edit the db
 
2:57 PM
great
Oracle is the best right?
btter than MS SQL or DB2 or Sybase....
 
hm
I actually prefer mysql ;p
 
yes
but there are some features that mySQL does not have and Oracle has
 
do you use them? ;p
 
i mean if the company is rich ... they would choose Oracle or Microsoft I suppose
like banks etc
not mySQL
 
I only know two people who do db 'programming (aka sql, view etc).
Both are rather explicit with "mySQL.die.die.die!"
Something to do with the lack of features
 
3:11 PM
lol
@Hennes: if you're actually programming databases, I guess so
most of the stuff I end up running runs mysql
that said, what i've seen of oracle's tools are great for newbies ;p
 
Those two created and maintained the db with all of stacks administration. dozens of years of transactions (Membership fees, club fees, every single transaction of the bar, buying drinks, over date stuff, actual HW costs etc). The tables grew rather large
It ended up in postgress
 
market share.... Oracle leads, MS is the second one
 
@JourneymanGeek @EinsteinsGrandson All of them are free for development & evaluation. You need a license for putting them in production
 
@Sathya ...you mean all of these:
* Express Editon*
* Standart Edition One*
* Standart Edition One*
* Enterprise Edition*
?
 
3 mins ago, by Sathya
@JourneymanGeek @EinsteinsGrandson All of them are free for development & evaluation. You need a license for putting them in production
 
Bob
3:29 PM
ok, gonna have to take apart my screen again -_-
holding it in just the right place turns the screen red. Great.
 
4:18 PM
 
 
2 hours later…
6:16 PM
Rabit downvoting time. Take your shot at this question
1
A: Purpose of HDMI output on ultrabooks?

HennesPeople may want to connect their ultrabook to a larger screen and do some actually constructive work on it. Alter all, an ultrabook is not a movie player.

 
6:32 PM
@Hennes thats easily one of the dumber questions I've seen all week
 
Aye. I do not like downvoting for no reason. I like to give newish people the benefit of doubt
Not in this case
 
I don't really downvote. I just close.
 
in hindsight: I could have used 'not a real question'
 
Apparently I've only downvoted 23 times in total.
 
@SimonSheehan you should downvote more
 
 
1 hour later…
7:53 PM
@Sathya Probably. Usually if a question/answer sucks I'll VTC/edit it, and sorta skip the downvoting process. But you are right
 
 
2 hours later…
Bob
10:06 PM
@Hennes Well, it looks like those horrible speeds (~35MB/s) were a combination of the 'green' drives and RAID :S
7200RPM drives in RAID 1 reach about 150 (and about the same individually)
the 'green' drives individually reach ~120
read speeds*
bleh
 
Well, green drives are optimised for quite different tasks than other drives.
Or, in WD case, than black or red drives
 
Bob
10:31 PM
@Hennes still quite a drastic difference
actually, might have something to do with a misreported sector size
 
Aye. And good to know that the 'not optimised for' can make such a big difference
 
Bob
all these drives have 512 byte logical sectors, and 4k physical
 
I mean, I can assume ti should be the case, but RL experience does not always match my assumptions
 
Bob
but the green ones reported 512 physical in RST settings for whatever reason
which might have screwed up whatever optimisations RST might have tried
 
All initial AF drives used to report 512bytes/sector used and '512 b/s real (the latter being a lie)
 
10:36 PM
yeah, I made the mistake using greens in a raid 5, boy was i in a world of hurt. finally i gave up and swapped em all out for blacks and it was almost a 3x improvement on R/W speeds
Reds might even be better
or, better yet, buy Seagate barracudas. shameless employee loyalty brand plug
 
guys
i need help
 
sup?
keep in mind, by saying you need help, you agreed to my EULA
 
i used unetbootin to install mint
 
I now have ownership of your souls.
 
but it didnt do it right.
So what happened is i got my hdd partitioned and didnt install anything
I lost 250 gb
 
10:39 PM
k
 
how can I get them back?
 
let me see if i understand
you have a HDD of X size, and when you installed mint, your end result partition was X-250gb?
 
yes
but mint didnt install
So I have 250 gb less and no mint
 
.....? then how do you know that the partition is a different size?
nvm
reinstall mint again, but just delete the existing partitions and create a nice, squishy new one of the whole disk.
 
but if I do that i will lose my windows
what do i do?
 
10:43 PM
oh. you didnt mention the other partitions
 
This morning I had all of my hd on windows.
ABout an hour ago I decided to try out mint
 
okay..... i need more info. boot into windows, open disk manager, screenshot the drive and post
 
i downloaded it and selected (install alongside windows)
It started to do its thing and then it said.
Failed to install grub
 
sounds like you have two problems
 
and when I tried to install it again I had 250 less gb
 
10:45 PM
but first things first, i need to see how your partitions are arranged on disk. boot to windows, open disk management, and screenshot
 
the green part was the partition i made
 
what are those smaller partitions at the start and end?
 
i dont know
But they are only like 20 gb put together
what do i do to put the green and blue one together?
 
its not the size, that concerns me but the placement
you can only create partitions in a continuous line.
 
what?
so what do i do?
 
10:56 PM
hmm
you could delete green and blue, then install mint into the empty space, but that would only get you 187gb
but your other problem is you have a bad installer
what are you installing from? USB?
 
yes
with unetbootin
 
mint (like many flavors of linux) has a REALLY hard time installing from certain USB drive.
burn the iso to a disk. much more likely to succeed.
 
i dont have a disk
 
Bob
@JaredTritsch by 'green' drives, I meant Seagate Barracuda Green. Not WD Green.
Moved to Toshiba for now (all else being equal with the equivalent Seagate; it has a 3x longer warranty)
 
@Bob my point was you need constant speed drives
7200 or better.
 
11:07 PM
@JaredTritsch what os are you using?
 
Bob
@JaredTritsch I still think the main issue was the misreported physical sector size
I dunno, with all the recommendations to use 2x the physical size with the dd family of tools, I assume that would be faster. In which case, if RST is optimising for a multiple of 512 bytes, well...
 
hm. idk
 
dude
what os do you use?
 
I use windows
but i have dualbooted *nux many times.
 

« first day (842 days earlier)      last day (4168 days later) »