Hard Drives - Adding
Andrew Luck
I have a 486dx266 pc with the following:
16 meg RAM
EISA (5 mastering, 3 not) and 2 VESA slots
on the motherboard Fast SCSI-2 (Adaptec 7770 chipset) (Uses ASPI7DOS)
(Also wide if the manufacturer ever figures it out.
Anyway two channels are available)
1 gig Quantum SCSI Hard Drive
Toshiba 3401 SCSI Internal
Conner 525MB SCSI Tape backup - Channel 0 required
I (need/want/lust/choose one) more hard drive space for the following reason(s):
1. Linux doesn't support this particular Adaptec chip set (only temp I hope).
2. Need more space.
3. Currently the machine is MBR DOS/OS2, and I want to add at least linux,
if not also NeXTStep4Intel, Chicago, Solaris for Intel, etc. Eventually.
I am looking at a some of options, for the reason ennumerated.
1.) Add an IDE drive, cause I know it will be supported by Linux.
(Course, all the stuff on the SCSI drive won't be accessisble)
(And I get the idea the IDE would have to hold the Master Boot record)
2.) Add two IDE drives. That way, I could maximize the responsiveness
of the computer by putting the swap partition on the second IDE drive.
(I've heard that putting the swap partition on a different physical
device theoretically increases system response by reducing
head movement when swapping is required. Does this REALLY happen?
Not, is it economical, but is a performance increase reailzed?)
(Could also put swap partitions for other operating systems on IDE
drives for same reason(s).)
3.) Add another SCSI adapter card (EISA or VESA ?) Then get a second SCSI
and load Linux on it. Or transfer the first SCSI to the Added controller.
(SCSI Controller adapter conflicts ?)
(Choose this because the IDE would add load to the CPU, which
may not be a big deal, but then again, I am looking for the
best choice. Stay on the SCSI bus regardless? Is there an advantage?)
Other options ?
Admittedly, I being no guru, have heard the old wives tales without
being able to separate the wheat from the chaff (mixed metaphor). If
there are some guru's rules (GURU'S RULE!) to guide the mixing of
storage devices in a multi-OS system, I'd appreciate a pointer or help.
This is not an attempt to build the ultimate system, but my experience
has been that choosing rightly up front and paying a little extra for
the tweaks is very helpful in the long run.
Thanks for getting this far. Posting to the newsgroup is okay by me.
Shower me with wisdom!
Andrew Luck
bogus. I mean, does it Realy make a difference?
Thang Vu
SCSI card). The IDE interface is good only for DOS and Windows. For
advanced operating systems, SCSI is the choice.
Mark A. Horton
: This is one of those "but they mean well questions"
: I have a 486dx266 pc with the following:
: 16 meg RAM
: EISA (5 mastering, 3 not) and 2 VESA slots
: on the motherboard Fast SCSI-2 (Adaptec 7770 chipset) (Uses ASPI7DOS)
: (Also wide if the manufacturer ever figures it out.
: Anyway two channels are available)
: 1 gig Quantum SCSI Hard Drive
: Toshiba 3401 SCSI Internal
: Conner 525MB SCSI Tape backup - Channel 0 required
: I (need/want/lust/choose one) more hard drive space for the following reason(s):
: 1. Linux doesn't support this particular Adaptec chip set (only temp I hope).
: 2. Need more space.
: 3. Currently the machine is MBR DOS/OS2, and I want to add at least linux,
: if not also NeXTStep4Intel, Chicago, Solaris for Intel, etc. Eventually.
YIKES!
: I am looking at a some of options, for the reason ennumerated.
: 1.) Add an IDE drive, cause I know it will be supported by Linux.
: (Course, all the stuff on the SCSI drive won't be accessisble)
: (And I get the idea the IDE would have to hold the Master Boot record)
Not necessarily -- you could boot from floppy and have it
switch to the drive/partition of choice.
: 2.) Add two IDE drives. That way, I could maximize the responsiveness
: of the computer by putting the swap partition on the second IDE drive.
: (I've heard that putting the swap partition on a different physical
: device theoretically increases system response by reducing
: head movement when swapping is required. Does this REALLY happen?
Yes. Statistically the chances of the heads being close to
the needed data are better. Performance increase can be
from slight to truly phenomenal.
: Not, is it economical, but is a performance increase reailzed?)
: (Could also put swap partitions for other operating systems on IDE
: drives for same reason(s).)
Certainly. Although only a true multi-tasking, multi-
programming, multi-user OS will really take advantage of it.
: 3.) Add another SCSI adapter card (EISA or VESA ?) Then get a second SCSI
YES!
: and load Linux on it. Or transfer the first SCSI to the Added controller
Can first controller be disabled???
: (SCSI Controller adapter conflicts ?)
: (Choose this because the IDE would add load to the CPU, which
: may not be a big deal, but then again, I am looking for the
No big deal with the cpu you are running... memory and disk
access will be your first bottlenecks. CPU loading should
be minimal.
: best choice. Stay on the SCSI bus regardless? Is there an advantage?)
SCSI is far more flexible and theoretically performs better,
although the performance figures on the newer IDE drives are
very impressive.
: Other options ?
: Admittedly, I being no guru, have heard the old wives tales without
: being able to separate the wheat from the chaff (mixed metaphor). If
: there are some guru's rules (GURU'S RULE!) to guide the mixing of
: storage devices in a multi-OS system, I'd appreciate a pointer or help.
Nothing wrong at all with mixing devices... Until one
of them died, I was running two IDE drives (200MB ea. --
yeah, I know, kinda small, but they were old.) and two
1.2 GB scsi drives in the same system. I was using one
IDE for boot/root/swap and the other for swap while keeping
the more active DATA files (usr/home/spool) over on the
scsi devices. If anything, I must say that I've lost some
performance with the scsi-only setup and the reason appears
to be increased head movement as well as i/o congestion.
The more drives, the better... plus more controllers!
: This is not an attempt to build the ultimate system, but my experience
: has been that choosing rightly up front and paying a little extra for
: the tweaks is very helpful in the long run.
True. "There ain't no substitute for proper planning."
: Thanks for getting this far. Posting to the newsgroup is okay by me.
: Shower me with wisdom!
One point to consider, while having sufficient and high
enough speed swapping devices is important, our goal from
a system-performance perspective should be to never have
to swap! Any time we have to go to disk we are slowing
down by at least one order of magnitude! You might want
to weigh the cost/benefit of more real memory and slower
swap devices. An additional 16 MB might actually be cheaper
and insure that swapping almost never occurs.
--
Mark A. Horton m...@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us m...@ka4ybr.com
P.O.Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747 ICBM: 33 45 N / 084 16 W
+1.404.371.0291 Cruise: 33 45 30 N / 084 16 50 W
"We may note that, for the purposes of these experiments, the symbol
"=" has the meaning "may be confused with."
Fred J. McCall 575-5185
: I (need/want/lust/choose one) more hard drive space for the following reason(s):
: 1. Linux doesn't support this particular Adaptec chip set (only temp I hope).
: 2. Need more space.
: 3. Currently the machine is MBR DOS/OS2, and I want to add at least linux,
: if not also NeXTStep4Intel, Chicago, Solaris for Intel, etc. Eventually.
: I am looking at a some of options, for the reason ennumerated.
: 1.) Add an IDE drive, cause I know it will be supported by Linux.
: (Course, all the stuff on the SCSI drive won't be accessisble)
: (And I get the idea the IDE would have to hold the Master Boot record)
This will work (and yes, the IDE has to be the boot drive). I don't
know that I'd go this route, simply because it leaves you with a drive
you can't get to. Also, unless you get one of the more expensive IDE
boards, your CPU is going to have to be intimately involved in disk
accesses and this will slow you down, particularly under multitasking
OS's like UNIX derivatives, NT, OS/2, etc.
: 2.) Add two IDE drives. That way, I could maximize the responsiveness
: of the computer by putting the swap partition on the second IDE drive.
: (I've heard that putting the swap partition on a different physical
: device theoretically increases system response by reducing
: head movement when swapping is required. Does this REALLY happen?
: Not, is it economical, but is a performance increase reailzed?)
: (Could also put swap partitions for other operating systems on IDE
: drives for same reason(s).)
Yes, this works. However, it works a lot better with SCSI. Once
again, the problem is the involvement of the CPU in data transfers for
IDE.
: 3.) Add another SCSI adapter card (EISA or VESA ?) Then get a second SCSI
: and load Linux on it. Or transfer the first SCSI to the Added controller.
: (SCSI Controller adapter conflicts ?)
: (Choose this because the IDE would add load to the CPU, which
: may not be a big deal, but then again, I am looking for the
: best choice. Stay on the SCSI bus regardless? Is there an advantage?)
I would do this, moving the current SCSI drive. Multiple SCSI drives
with multiple swap (one on each drive) tends to be a big win under
most sorts of UNIX, so you may still want to buy a second SCSI drive.
Multiple SCSI is typically not a problem. I'm currently running an
IDE (of the cheap variety) plus two SCSI controllers.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred....@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Fred J. McCall 575-5185
: Added point - Have an IDE for 32-bit access in MSWindows. Is this
: Thanks for getting this far. Posting to the newsgroup is okay by me.
: Shower me with wisdom!
It makes a big difference if you happen to have one of the controllers
that is exactly what Windows expects. Otherwise you either can't use
32-bit access or it will let you and then hose your data.
COULT NICHOLAS ASHTON
which serves applications remotely over a modem connection.
I have some questions regarding this.
1. Is it really possible?
2. What software is needed to do this?
3. How fast would the modem have to be for this to be useable?
4. Is there any special software/hardware which would be needed on the other
end of the connection?
Any help is greatly appreciated. If you know of a good place to look for this
information, please let me know.
-Nick
Khan M. Klatt
>I have heard that, with the proper software, it is possible under OS/2 to run an X-server
>which serves applications remotely over a modem connection.
>I have some questions regarding this.
>1. Is it really possible?
I've never heard of this being possible... if so I, too, would appreciate
answers to the following questions.
>2. What software is needed to do this?
>3. How fast would the modem have to be for this to be useable?
>4. Is there any special software/hardware which would be needed on the other
>end of the connection?
>Any help is greatly appreciated. If you know of a good place to look for this
>information, please let me know.
Indeed, me too.
>-Nick
Khan
n904...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
--
-Khan M. Klatt---...@henson.cc.wwu.edu---Western Washington University
"It takes about a month for women to get used to me. Kinda like a
skittish animal.. they have to sniff you for a while, walk around
you until they get comfortable." -Andrew Ghali
Eliot Wilson
]coult@magellan (COULT NICHOLAS ASHTON) writes:
]
]>I have heard that, with the proper software, it is possible under OS/2 to run an X-server
]>which serves applications remotely over a modem connection.
]>I have some questions regarding this.
]
]>1. Is it really possible?
]
]I've never heard of this being possible... if so I, too, would appreciate
]answers to the following questions.
The simpliest solution is to use IBM's TCP/IP which include a SLIP interafce
which run IP over serial lines. But this would be very solw, even with 14.4
modems. But it would be do'able....even with 9600.
I hear that Hummingbird is making a X-server for OS/2. Their Windoze version
has an add-on which is code licensed from Tektronic. It has a portion that
runs on the machine the X-client is running on(a unix host) and a portion
that runs where is X-server is. It is "smart" about the X protocol and does
great compression. i used the Windoze version with 9600 baud modems, and
wa very impressed. Hummingbird is in Canada, forget the number their
product is call eXceed. Hopefully they will have the "X-remote" portion
for OS/2 also.
MIT is working on LBX which is Low Bandwidth X which will be part of
X11R6, or R7 I think and will provde this compression ability
built into the X-server and clients, but it isn't a standard yet.
Hope it helps,
-Eliot
>
]>2. What software is needed to do this?
]>3. How fast would the modem have to be for this to be useable?
]>4. Is there any special software/hardware which would be needed on the other
]>end of the connection?
]
]>Any help is greatly appreciated. If you know of a good place to look for this
]>information, please let me know.
]
]Indeed, me too.
]
]>-Nick
]
]Khan
]
]n904...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
]--
]-Khan M. Klatt---...@henson.cc.wwu.edu---Western Washington University
] "It takes about a month for women to get used to me. Kinda like a
] skittish animal.. they have to sniff you for a while, walk around
] you until they get comfortable." -Andrew Ghali
--
Eliot Wilson Univ. of Cincinnati UG Computer Science
A-in't * I OS/2 it! *
I-t Internet:
X-citing ewi...@ucunix.san.uc.edu / Hate->The latest family value /
Carlos Y. Villalpando
>In article <2cenj3$2...@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
>Eliot Wilson <ewi...@ucunix.san.uc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I hear that Hummingbird is making a X-server for OS/2. Their Windoze version
>
>
> server, not the display engine.
>
> -Robert
Bzzzt! wrong. The X package is the SERVER and all the applications
are the clients. Think of it this way. One runs X on their machine.
It sits and waits for requests from applications to draw on its
screen. The applications themselves cannot draw to the screen
(especially if they are not running on your machine, but want to
display on your machine) The X server SERVices the requests and draws
on the screen. In a client/server model, the server is the one
providing the SERVice, the client requests services from somwhere
else.
If you disagree, go ahead and follow up. I changed Follow-Up to: line to
comp.windows.x. But be prepared to put on your asbestos suit if you
say X is a client instead of a server.
--Carlos V.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Y. Villalpando | Don't even think I speak for the Gov't
unbe...@brain.jpl.nasa.gov | I also didn't screw up the Mars Observer
unbe...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | (There was that button I sat on......)
Fred J. McCall 575-5185
: I have heard that, with the proper software, it is possible under OS/2 to run an X-server
: which serves applications remotely over a modem connection.
: I have some questions regarding this.
: 1. Is it really possible?
Yes, but you're being somewhat confused. You're calling it 'server'
but describing what in X is called a *client*. I don't know of any X
client software for OS/2. There are X server package, which when
coupled with TCP/IP will let you run a SLIP connection to another
machine that is running an X client and display its applications on
your screen.
: 2. What software is needed to do this?
X and TCP/IP
: 3. How fast would the modem have to be for this to be useable?
As fast as possible. This isn't going to be an optimal solution, but
expect real pain at anything below 9600. Even 14.4k is going to hurt
if you're running graphical applications.
: 4. Is there any special software/hardware which would be needed on the other
: end of the connection?
The client side to run the actual applications while your OS/2 server
runs the display.
Guy Harris
>: to run an X-server
>: which serves applications remotely over a modem connection.
>: I have some questions regarding this.
>
>: 1. Is it really possible?
>
>Yes, but you're being somewhat confused. You're calling it 'server'
>but describing what in X is called a *client*.
Actually, he could be describing what in X is called a *server* - i.e.,
a piece of code he could run under OS/2 that would let some X client
application connect to the OS/2 machine sitting on his desk, draw in
windows on his screen, and let him type at the application and control
it with a mouse.
He didn't indicate what it would mean to "serve applications remotely",
but, absent any further information, I'd read that as "let remote
applications pop up windows, draw in them, and get input events", which
means he's asking for an X server....
As I remember, NCD - who came up with one scheme for doing X over a
modem (other than just running X atop TCP atop IP atop SLIP or PPP) -
bought some vendor of X server software for some PeeCee operating
systems. Dunno
1) if they offer such software for OS/2;
2) whether that software can use NCD's Xremote mechanism for
doing X over a modem (which allegedly is more efficient than
just running X atop TCP atop IP atop possibly even compressed
SLIP or PPP; dunno if that's the case or not).
god...@isl.stanford.edu
>coult@magellan (COULT NICHOLAS ASHTON) writes:
>
>>I have heard that, with the proper software, it is possible under OS/2 to run an X-server
>>which serves applications remotely over a modem connection.
>>I have some questions regarding this.
>
>>1. Is it really possible?
>
>I've never heard of this being possible... if so I, too, would appreciate
>answers to the following questions.
>
>>2. What software is needed to do this?
>>3. How fast would the modem have to be for this to be useable?
>>4. Is there any special software/hardware which would be needed on the other
>>end of the connection?
>
Mike Dahmus
>COULT NICHOLAS ASHTON (coult@magellan) wrote:
>: I have heard that, with the proper software, it is possible under OS/2 to run an X-server
>: which serves applications remotely over a modem connection.
>: I have some questions regarding this.
>
>: 1. Is it really possible?
>
>Yes, but you're being somewhat confused. You're calling it 'server'
>but describing what in X is called a *client*. I don't know of any X
>client software for OS/2. There are X server package, which when
>coupled with TCP/IP will let you run a SLIP connection to another
>machine that is running an X client and display its applications on
>your screen.
One of the "kits" that comprises IBM TCP/IP 2.0 contains both an X server
and an X client. I don't use X, so I don't know anything more about it.
------
Mike Dahmus Internet: mi...@vnet.ibm.com
Pen for OS/2 Development, IBM PSP IBM: mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com
Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman IBM Vnet: MDAHMUS at BOCA