First, are you using a supported card or chipset? I had a problem for a while with a Promise66 card for a while and booting off of my drives. Turns out the bios wasn't giving correct cylinders/heads/sectors numbers so after passing the correct values to lilo everything worked.
Take a look at the output from lilo and read the lilo documentation for more information on what it means. For example getting to LI- is different from getting to LI is different from getting to LIL-, etc.
"Stick two drives on there and watch your 40MB/s burst your ATA/66 cables"
Correct me if I'm wrong.
ATA/66 allows for 66 megs per sec per channel. usually 2 channels per interface. 2 devices can fit on a channel (master and slave). However, and this is important, only 1 device per channel can be accessed at once at any given time (either master or slave). so in fact you won't ever saturate an ATA/66 interface with drives that can only burst at around 40 megs per sec.
Well, if we're going to talk about windows drivers and the way they are installed, have you ever had registry problems? I can't tell you the number of times my registry has been screwed up by installing new drivers in windows, forcing me to reinstall because fixing the registry is like answering what is the meaning of life (ie impossible). Atleast in linux, I know where drivers are being installed and what files are being changed.
ATA/66 as well as ATA/33 supports two drives per channel. Most interfaces come with 2 channels making 4 devices but not all. (Many motherboards only come with 1 channel). Secondly, you really don't want to put two hard drives on the same channel. Only 1 device per channel can be accessed at any given time so probably both devices will run slower than if they were on different channels. (because of the switching between devices, assuming you want to use them at the same time).
"Actually ATA/66 has support for up to 4 devices per interface."
Actually only if the interface has two channels. Not all interfaces have two channels, especially on motherboards. ATA/66 can support 2 drives per channel, a master and a slave.
I think it's great that Linux has ATA/100 drivers before Micro$oft. However, ATA/100 interfaces are currently useless and I think will continue to be useless for sometime. The last time I checked the latest drives couldn't burst much more than 30-40 megs per sec. Do a sequential read and maybe they can sustain 20 or so megs per sec. Do a random read test and that number drops dramatically.
So, my question is, what's the point of having an interface that can support 100 megs per sec when the fastest drives can do a burst of around 40 megs per sec? Even someone who has a drive that can burst 40 megs per sec, will not notice a speed decrease when going back to ATA/33 since the sustained transfer rates will be below 33 megs per sec.
Does anyone have any *good* reasons why so many distributions (such as Mandrake) use RedHat as a base? As I see it, there are two ways that RedHat differentiates itself from other distros: package management and installation (both of which are closely related).
The RedHat installation as far as I can tell is not that different from any other menu based installation. And their addition of Disk Druid might be a step up from fdisk (depending on who you talk to) but really isn't all that different from cfdisk.
As for package management, I have used rpm (.rpm files), dpkg (.deb files), and.tgz (slackware) packages. rpm and dpkg clearly beat.tgz files in terms of ease of install/uninstall and dependencies but I really think that dpkg is superior to rpm (my main reason being better dependencies and that nice update checking feature).
So, basically if the RedHat installer is nothing that great and dpkg beats rpm why do so many distros (Mandrake being the most mainstream) copy RedHat? And if you don't believe me, go to any distro list and see how many are based on RedHat.
By the way, I realize that two of the more recent distros have been based on debian (Storm and Corel).
>After all, Napster is a legitimate business >organization, and other entities have no right >to make profits off of their hard work. As we >know, Napster would never, ever make money off >of anyone else's work, not even indirectly.
Although I can see the hypocricy in Napster's lawsuit, I think that you need to separate what they are actually making money off of and what is being traded with their software. Napster is *not* stealing copyrighted material; the users of napster (well, atleast some of them) are stealing the music. Napster is making money off the use of their software (well, even that's debatable considering it's a free download).
In fact, Napster makes their terms of use very clear at http://www.napster.com/dmca.html Just an excerpt:
"Napster respects copyright law and expects our users to do the same. Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights."
So, I think that they are in the clear legally (but who knows with all these new internet laws) but as for morally, I am opposed to the whole idea. It is sort of like renting trucks and boats to drug smugglers to help them transport their illegal goods. Although the trucking company isn't doing anything wrong legally, according to my morals they are.
Most data backup centers could be destroyed by a single conventional warhead. I've only ever heard of government installations actually have real physical security (from real weapons). But I don't see its vulnerability to warheads as a real threat. Who's going to hit it with a missile? Terrorists could I figure they would rather use it or waste their warheads on their real enemies. Governments could, but I doubt any every would.
Basically, almost no privately owned data protection centers could withstand a direct physical attack. So, why does it matter that Havenco couldn't? I think they are targetting the services not at governments who might need physical protection but at organizations, individuals, etc. that don't want to be subject to the restrictive laws of some other country.
>Sealand exists in a bizarre position: I don't >think the UK considers it independent, but they >cannot legally do a damn thing about it. Now that the UK extended there territory 12 miles (I think) out into the water they may be able to do something legally. Anyway supposing that they couldn't get it legally, I doubt any other country would care if they just took it back by force. They haven't so far because there really has been no reason to. The "island" is actually just a concrete tower so there is no real value. However, now that Havenco is setting up a lucrative business, the UK might be more interested in taking back the territory.
Slashdot Mirror
First, are you using a supported card or chipset? I had a problem for a while with a Promise66 card for a while and booting off of my drives. Turns out the bios wasn't giving correct cylinders/heads/sectors numbers so after passing the correct values to lilo everything worked.
Take a look at the output from lilo and read the lilo documentation for more information on what it means. For example getting to LI- is different from getting to LI is different from getting to LIL-, etc.
Good luck.
"Stick two drives on there and watch your 40MB/s burst your ATA/66 cables"
Correct me if I'm wrong.
ATA/66 allows for 66 megs per sec per channel. usually 2 channels per interface. 2 devices can fit on a channel (master and slave). However, and this is important, only 1 device per channel can be accessed at once at any given time (either master or slave). so in fact you won't ever saturate an ATA/66 interface with drives that can only burst at around 40 megs per sec.
Hope this clears it up.
Well, if we're going to talk about windows drivers and the way they are installed, have you ever had registry problems? I can't tell you the number of times my registry has been screwed up by installing new drivers in windows, forcing me to reinstall because fixing the registry is like answering what is the meaning of life (ie impossible). Atleast in linux, I know where drivers are being installed and what files are being changed.
ATA/66 as well as ATA/33 supports two drives per channel. Most interfaces come with 2 channels making 4 devices but not all. (Many motherboards only come with 1 channel). Secondly, you really don't want to put two hard drives on the same channel. Only 1 device per channel can be accessed at any given time so probably both devices will run slower than if they were on different channels. (because of the switching between devices, assuming you want to use them at the same time).
"Actually ATA/66 has support for up to 4 devices per interface."
Actually only if the interface has two channels. Not all interfaces have two channels, especially on motherboards. ATA/66 can support 2 drives per channel, a master and a slave.
I think it's great that Linux has ATA/100 drivers before Micro$oft. However, ATA/100 interfaces are currently useless and I think will continue to be useless for sometime. The last time I checked the latest drives couldn't burst much more than 30-40 megs per sec. Do a sequential read and maybe they can sustain 20 or so megs per sec. Do a random read test and that number drops dramatically.
So, my question is, what's the point of having an interface that can support 100 megs per sec when the fastest drives can do a burst of around 40 megs per sec? Even someone who has a drive that can burst 40 megs per sec, will not notice a speed decrease when going back to ATA/33 since the sustained transfer rates will be below 33 megs per sec.
Does anyone have any *good* reasons why so many distributions (such as Mandrake) use RedHat as a base? As I see it, there are two ways that RedHat differentiates itself from other distros: package management and installation (both of which are closely related).
.tgz (slackware) packages. rpm and dpkg clearly beat .tgz files in terms of ease of install/uninstall and dependencies but I really think that dpkg is superior to rpm (my main reason being better dependencies and that nice update checking feature).
The RedHat installation as far as I can tell is not that different from any other menu based installation. And their addition of Disk Druid might be a step up from fdisk (depending on who you talk to) but really isn't all that different from cfdisk.
As for package management, I have used rpm (.rpm files), dpkg (.deb files), and
So, basically if the RedHat installer is nothing that great and dpkg beats rpm why do so many distros (Mandrake being the most mainstream) copy RedHat? And if you don't believe me, go to any distro list and see how many are based on RedHat.
By the way, I realize that two of the more recent distros have been based on debian (Storm and Corel).
>After all, Napster is a legitimate business >organization, and other entities have no right >to make profits off of their hard work. As we >know, Napster would never, ever make money off >of anyone else's work, not even indirectly.
Although I can see the hypocricy in Napster's lawsuit, I think that you need to separate what they are actually making money off of and what is being traded with their software. Napster is *not* stealing copyrighted material; the users of napster (well, atleast some of them) are stealing the music. Napster is making money off the use of their software (well, even that's debatable considering it's a free download).
In fact, Napster makes their terms of use very clear at http://www.napster.com/dmca.html
Just an excerpt:
"Napster respects copyright law and expects our users to do the same. Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights."
So, I think that they are in the clear legally (but who knows with all these new internet laws) but as for morally, I am opposed to the whole idea. It is sort of like renting trucks and boats to drug smugglers to help them transport their illegal goods. Although the trucking company isn't doing anything wrong legally, according to my morals they are.
Most data backup centers could be destroyed by a single conventional warhead. I've only ever heard of government installations actually have real physical security (from real weapons). But I don't see its vulnerability to warheads as a real threat. Who's going to hit it with a missile? Terrorists could I figure they would rather use it or waste their warheads on their real enemies. Governments could, but I doubt any every would.
Basically, almost no privately owned data protection centers could withstand a direct physical attack. So, why does it matter that Havenco couldn't? I think they are targetting the services not at governments who might need physical protection but at organizations, individuals, etc. that don't want to be subject to the restrictive laws of some other country.
>Sealand exists in a bizarre position: I don't >think the UK considers it independent, but they >cannot legally do a damn thing about it. Now that the UK extended there territory 12 miles (I think) out into the water they may be able to do something legally. Anyway supposing that they couldn't get it legally, I doubt any other country would care if they just took it back by force. They haven't so far because there really has been no reason to. The "island" is actually just a concrete tower so there is no real value. However, now that Havenco is setting up a lucrative business, the UK might be more interested in taking back the territory.