Jump to content

hdparm ???


paul
 Share

Recommended Posts

bvc, I think some SiS systems have only one chip in their chipset, so technically just a chip not a set... and since all interconnects are within the same die, they can have a much higher bandwidth...

 

Apart from that, I don't really know. Don't worry about it though, the lower of the two numbers is the more important one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germ, how did you turn accoustical mgnt off? I figured setting it to 254

 

-M254

 

was basically turning it off. :?

 

Maxtor has a utility called amset. You can d/l it at maxtor.com There are 3 settings that Maxtor HDDs support for acoustical management. quiet, fast, and off.

 

hdparm says:

Recommended acoustic management value: 192, current value: 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GorGor

since you are boasting On my 4 year hd I get 80 and 20 Mbps shucks.

 

aaahh, don't forget to include it in your init scripts so the speeds will always be there, assuming you turn off your computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, open /etc/rd.d/rc.sysinit and search for hdparm to find the right way to initialize at boot via /etc/sysconfig/harddisk. If you have more than one hd you'll need (example)

harddiskhda

harddiskhdb

harddiskhdc...and so on.

 

Don't recall if its

harddisk

or

harddisks

 

so read rc.sysinit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm amazed.

 

I'm using this string: -d1 -X69 -u1 -c3 -m16 -A1 -a32 -B255 -M254

 

Added "idebus=100" to append in lilo.conf and here's what I got:

 

[root@grendel root]# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   956 MB in  2.00 seconds = 478.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  106 MB in  3.02 seconds =  35.10 MB/sec

 

I thought that can't be right so tried again and got:

 

/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1020 MB in  2.00 seconds = 510.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  106 MB in  3.02 seconds =  35.10 MB/sec

 

/germ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:shock: :P

localhost:~# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1048 MB in  2.00 seconds = 524.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  110 MB in  3.00 seconds =  36.67 MB/sec

localhost:~# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1084 MB in  2.00 seconds = 542.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  110 MB in  3.04 seconds =  36.18 MB/sec

localhost:~#

 

What could cause that? This

-B set Advanced Power Management setting (1-255)

 

Because I already had the others set....it's the only new setting. Thanks!....ooOoo look at nautilus open like a terminal 8) :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

# hdparm -a8 /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

setting fs readahead to 8

readahead    =  8 (on)

# hdparm -tT /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1096 MB in  2.00 seconds = 548.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  120 MB in  3.02 seconds =  39.74 MB/sec

# hdparm -tT /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1096 MB in  2.00 seconds = 548.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  120 MB in  3.01 seconds =  39.87 MB/sec

# hdparm -tT /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1084 MB in  2.00 seconds = 542.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  122 MB in  3.01 seconds =  40.53 MB/sec

# hdparm -a32 /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

setting fs readahead to 32

readahead    = 32 (on)

# hdparm -tT /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1084 MB in  2.00 seconds = 542.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  120 MB in  3.01 seconds =  39.87 MB/sec

# hdparm -tT /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1108 MB in  2.00 seconds = 554.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  122 MB in  3.03 seconds =  40.26 MB/sec

# hdparm -tT /dev/hda



/dev/hda:

Timing buffer-cache reads:   1100 MB in  2.00 seconds = 550.00 MB/sec

Timing buffered disk reads:  118 MB in  3.01 seconds =  39.20 MB/sec

 

Not much difference for me. I have a Seagate 80G 7200RPM drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If hdb is faster (I presume with the 8MB cache) then you are probably dragging the two down by slaving it.

 

You can try fiddling with the filesystems at detail level. Spin speed etc and try and get them to actually sync better.

 

Obviously depends on the fs .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...