This seriously sucks, Apple
Sandman
strange benchmarks I was having with it:
http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
*complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
I got the Mac with the largest drive, the 750GB 7200RPM S-ATA drive
with the same 3 Gbit/s performance as the other disk options for the
Mac Pro.
So, after reading and posting on the apple discussion board, I found
that more people have this problem. Here is one, for example:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3462721�
So, according to one of the posters:
"In a system with 4 discrete processors - each capable of running
multiple threads, each having enormous memory bandwidth and access
to immense bus speeds there is one obvious bottleneck - and that
is the mechanical/magnetic hard disk drive."
Ok, great. So Apple sells a computer has disks too slow for their
processors?
Anyway, I ordered two WD Raptor disks, each at 150GB and striped them
in a RAID and installed OSX on that one and now the system flies, so
it seems that that might just have been the problem. But it's a shame
Apple does this. And why not offer 15K SAS-drives for Mac Pro? That's
what I have in my Xserves.
And, after the reinstall on the new drives, I ran the "benchmark" from
the link in the top again and finally the Mac Pro wins the test with 5
seconds!
Phew. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Nashton
Serves you right, Loopy.
As I've always said, there is *always* something missing in Macs. Always
some compromise built in, whereas you're getting a "better" GUI/OS
experience, but take a hit in performance or some other thing.
Apple should stick to making iPods and iTVs.
--
Nicolas
Sandman
Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
--
Sandman[.net]
C Lund
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
How many HDs do you have? I've noticed that my second HD - which I use
only for backups - falls to sleep when unused for a certain amount of
time. It takes a second or two for it to wake up again. But that
doesn't seem to affect the entire OS...
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Sandman
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> > whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> > *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> > ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
> > slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
>
> How many HDs do you have?
Four now.
150GB WD Raptor
150GB WD Raptor
750GB Apple Stock
250GB Seagate
> I've noticed that my second HD - which I use
> only for backups - falls to sleep when unused for a certain amount of
> time. It takes a second or two for it to wake up again. But that
> doesn't seem to affect the entire OS...
Yeah, you can turn that off in Energy Saver preferences. And no,
that's not my problem here...
--
Sandman[.net]
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <clund-A25054....@news.get.no>):
Power management is not the friend of people that favor
responsive computers. Face it, your computer is /not/ the
biggest consumer of electricity in your house, not by a long
shot, so get over it and turn off all the power management
features and move along. Face the fact that you will be solely
responsible for raising the average temperature of the planet by
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and
get on with your day.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
Edwin
According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Jim Polaski
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Yeah oh lost one, depending on what he does, he's probably going to need
some of that extra storage anyway. You folks who do a lot of images,
maybe movies/DVD's or graphic design, all of which eat space and I
haven't even gotten to audio. Then there's backup. Are you really this
dumb or do you play stupid? Get those microprocessors of yours fixed.
--
Jim
OldCSMAer
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:52:49 -0600, C Lund wrote
> (in article <clund-A25054....@news.get.no>):
>
> > In article <mr-D87AAD.13...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> >> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> >> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> >> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> >> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
> >> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
> >
> > How many HDs do you have? I've noticed that my second HD - which I use
> > only for backups - falls to sleep when unused for a certain amount of
> > time. It takes a second or two for it to wake up again. But that
> > doesn't seem to affect the entire OS...
>
> Power management is not the friend of people that favor
> responsive computers. Face it, your computer is /not/ the
> biggest consumer of electricity in your house, not by a long
> shot, so get over it and turn off all the power management
> features and move along. Face the fact that you will be solely
> responsible for raising the average temperature of the planet by
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and
> get on with your day.
Your machine is still under warranty. Did you consider AppleCare before
adding the new drives?
MuahMan
"Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
news:jpolaski-9829EF...@netnews.comcast.net...
Gotta love that great Apple hardware of superior quality. You buy their high
end PC and you immediately have to replace the shit Apple drives because it
slows the whole system to a crawl! ROFLCOPTER!!!!
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
Actually, the WD Raptors sacrifices storage to gain speed.
Edwin is clueless as usual, the problem wasn't the mac per se, it was
the drive mechanism.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
"If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?"
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Apple should stick to making iPods and iTVs.
You should stick to trolling alt.kooks.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:52:49 -0600, C Lund wrote
> (in article <clund-A25054....@news.get.no>):
>
> > In article <mr-D87AAD.13...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> >> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> >> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> >> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> >> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
> >> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
> >
> > How many HDs do you have? I've noticed that my second HD - which I use
> > only for backups - falls to sleep when unused for a certain amount of
> > time. It takes a second or two for it to wake up again. But that
> > doesn't seem to affect the entire OS...
>
> Power management is not the friend of people that favor
> responsive computers. Face it, your computer is /not/ the
> biggest consumer of electricity in your house,
Not opnly that, but compared to the payoff that the investment in
electricity in the Mac gives, he should turn off the rest of his house,
because it simply doesn't give enough bang for the buck.
Edwin
I can almostl hear your weak, nasally voice whine that out. His
problem wasn't running out of storage space, Jimbob. It is that the
HDs Apple includes are too slow.
> You folks who do a lot of images,
> maybe movies/DVD's or graphic design, all of which eat space and I
> haven't even gotten to audio.
My $850 HP computer came with an HD that is big enough and fast enough
to handle any of that. Why can't the same be said for a $2,500 (or
more) MacPro?
> Then there's backup.
Another poor excuse.
> Are you really this
> dumb or do you play stupid? Get those microprocessors of yours fixed.
Those last two sentences are addressed to Jim Polaski.
Edwin
I can almost hear your weak, nasally voice whine that out. His
problem wasn't running out of storage space, Jimbob. It is that the
HDs Apple includes are too slow.
> You folks who do a lot of images,
> maybe movies/DVD's or graphic design, all of which eat space and I
> haven't even gotten to audio.
My $850 HP computer came with an HD that is big enough and fast enough
to handle any of that. Why can't the same be said for a $2,500 (or
more) MacPro?
> Then there's backup.
Another poor excuse.
> Are you really this
> dumb or do you play stupid? Get those microprocessors of yours fixed.
Those last two sentences are addressed to Jim Polaski.
Edwin
I can almost hear your weak, nasally voice whine that out. His
problem wasn't running out of storage space, Jimbob. It is that the
HDs Apple includes are too slow.
> You folks who do a lot of images,
> maybe movies/DVD's or graphic design, all of which eat space and I
> haven't even gotten to audio.
My $850 HP computer came with an HD that is big enough and fast enough
to handle any of that. Why can't the same be said for a $2,500 (or
more) MacPro?
> Then there's backup.
Another poor excuse.
> Are you really this
> dumb or do you play stupid? Get those microprocessors of yours fixed.
Those last two sentences are addressed to Jim Polaski.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<OldCSMAer-8C456...@news.cha.sbcglobal.net>):
I didn't add any drives. *sigh*
Edwin
IOW, Jimbob got it back-asswards.
> Edwin is clueless as usual, the problem wasn't the mac per se, it was
> the drive mechanism.
The type of drive mechanism Apple chose to install in that expensive
computer was the problem.
And it's hilarious to be called "clueless" by dweebs who think it's
perfectly alright to have to buy extra expensive HD to get performance
out of an already expensive Apple computer.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> So I recently bought a Mac Pro, and some of you may remember the
> strange benchmarks I was having with it:
>
> http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
>
> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
>
> I got the Mac with the largest drive, the 750GB 7200RPM S-ATA drive
> with the same 3 Gbit/s performance as the other disk options for the
> Mac Pro.
>
> So, after reading and posting on the apple discussion board, I found
> that more people have this problem. Here is one, for example:
>
> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3462721�
>
> So, according to one of the posters:
>
> "In a system with 4 discrete processors - each capable of running
> multiple threads, each having enormous memory bandwidth and access
> to immense bus speeds there is one obvious bottleneck - and that
> is the mechanical/magnetic hard disk drive."
>
> Ok, great. So Apple sells a computer has disks too slow for their
> processors?
No, that is a general bottleneck in teh PC world atm. If you think the
drive limitations is the source of your problems, you should move to
SCSI/SAS drives, which operate at 15.000 RPM, ie. twice as fast at
typical SAT drives.
>
> Anyway, I ordered two WD Raptor disks, each at 150GB and striped them
> in a RAID and installed OSX on that one and now the system flies, so
> it seems that that might just have been the problem. But it's a shame
> Apple does this. And why not offer 15K SAS-drives for Mac Pro? That's
> what I have in my Xserves.
>
> And, after the reinstall on the new drives, I ran the "benchmark" from
> the link in the top again and finally the Mac Pro wins the test with 5
> seconds!
>
> Phew. :)
Well, there you have it then.
Nashton
> Actually, the WD Raptors sacrifices storage to gain speed.
>
> Edwin is clueless as usual, the problem wasn't the mac per se, it was
> the drive mechanism.
The Mac came sans the drive, I suppose;)
--
Nicolas
Joseph Crowe
> In article <clund-A25054....@news.get.no>,
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>
>>> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
>>> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
>>> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
>>> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
>>> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
>> How many HDs do you have?
>
> Four now.
>
> 150GB WD Raptor
> 150GB WD Raptor
> 750GB Apple Stock
> 250GB Seagate
There are so many OS independent variables here that one can
make the broadest of generalizations. This type of optimization
has been of concern since early on in the days of filesystems and
all sorts of approaches have been tried to overcome such problems.
Consider that there is a hierarchy of speed from the fastest, the
CPU to the slowest, spinning magnetic media. In between are
L2, L3 cache and memory. CPU architectures internally attempt to
manage L2/L3 cache with help from the OS, but L2/L3 cache is very
small and expensive in die space and in this case, shared by multiple
cores. Memory is an order of magnitude, at least, slower than cache,
but faster than HDs by an order of magnitude. Keeping your data
pinned in memory helps. The real killer is HD access speed. Modern
HDs do have disk cache, but relatively small ones....Your problem,
if I was to guess, relates to a big bucket of water (750G drive)
with a tiny drainage hose. RAIDs can help by distributing data
across multiple access channels. Ideally, if I were creating a
system based on a UNIX model, I'd have OS code on a separate drive
from swap and a bunch of smaller, faster drives to use for data that
needs fairly quick access, like graphical data. I used to work for
a company that did fault tolerant systems for the telephone
industry and this type of exercise was common. I'm not sure how to
change this in MacOS X, or even if it makes sense, but we used to
make swap 3x memory size. In any case, good luck and I'm glad your
mystery is solved.
Snit
i3ash.50523$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 1/19/07 1:42 PM:
Sandman has shown his "benchmarks" where Rosetta was faster than native -
drive speed would not explain that. User error, on Sandman's part, would.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
> > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
> > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
>
> According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
How did pinpointing and solving a problem make my claim about Nicolas
cluelessness less valid, if that is what you mean?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Yeah oh lost one, depending on what he does, he's probably going to need
> > some of that extra storage anyway.
>
> I can almost hear your weak, nasally voice whine that out. His
> problem wasn't running out of storage space, Jimbob. It is that the
> HDs Apple includes are too slow.
Or the bus/processor too fast. :)
> > You folks who do a lot of images,
> > maybe movies/DVD's or graphic design, all of which eat space and I
> > haven't even gotten to audio.
>
> My $850 HP computer came with an HD that is big enough and fast enough
> to handle any of that. Why can't the same be said for a $2,500 (or
> more) MacPro?
Because the Mac Pro is a high end system, as opposed to your low-end
budget system.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Edwin is clueless as usual, the problem wasn't the mac per se, it was
> > the drive mechanism.
>
> The type of drive mechanism Apple chose to install in that expensive
> computer was the problem.
Indeed. Hence the "This seriously sucks, Apple".
> And it's hilarious to be called "clueless" by dweebs who think it's
> perfectly alright to have to buy extra expensive HD to get performance
> out of an already expensive Apple computer.
The solution to the problem is more expensive hard drives from the
beginning. What I had to pay more for was the 750GB drive that came
with the Mac, not for the extra drives I bought after that.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> > So, according to one of the posters:
> >
> > "In a system with 4 discrete processors - each capable of running
> > multiple threads, each having enormous memory bandwidth and access
> > to immense bus speeds there is one obvious bottleneck - and that
> > is the mechanical/magnetic hard disk drive."
> >
> > Ok, great. So Apple sells a computer has disks too slow for their
> > processors?
>
> No, that is a general bottleneck in teh PC world atm.
But it has never been a problem before, and isn't a problem on my
Macbook Pro where I have even slower disks.
> If you think the drive limitations is the source of your problems,
> you should move to SCSI/SAS drives, which operate at 15.000 RPM, ie.
> twice as fast at typical SAT drives.
I would if I could, but I can't order a Mac Pro with SAS drives...
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
OldCSMAer <OldC...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
No, because I figured that AppleCare wouldn't buy me Raptor drives...
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> In article <1hs78vj.1q9g1vjhk8yajN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk>,
> pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>
> > > So, according to one of the posters:
> > >
> > > "In a system with 4 discrete processors - each capable of running
> > > multiple threads, each having enormous memory bandwidth and access
> > > to immense bus speeds there is one obvious bottleneck - and that
> > > is the mechanical/magnetic hard disk drive."
> > >
> > > Ok, great. So Apple sells a computer has disks too slow for their
> > > processors?
> >
> > No, that is a general bottleneck in teh PC world atm.
>
> But it has never been a problem before, and isn't a problem on my
> Macbook Pro where I have even slower disks.
Then it is a problem of the SATA controller, the firmware and/or a
combination of these two and the system software.
>
> > If you think the drive limitations is the source of your problems,
> > you should move to SCSI/SAS drives, which operate at 15.000 RPM, ie.
> > twice as fast at typical SAT drives.
>
> I would if I could, but I can't order a Mac Pro with SAS drives...
Ordet a SAS incerface card and get the drives seperately, then.
Sandman
pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> > I would if I could, but I can't order a Mac Pro with SAS drives...
>
> Ordet a SAS incerface card and get the drives seperately, then.
The SAS drives in the Xserve are in a much longer enclosure... That's
actually the only SAS-drives I've ever seen, so I don't know if you
can force one of them into the Mac Pro HD bays...
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
With a hacksaw, a pair of pliers and duct tape, only the sky's the
limit... :)
Snit
1hs7l20.1lloy5y110gdmwN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk on 1/19/07 2:30 PM:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1hs78vj.1q9g1vjhk8yajN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk>,
>> pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>>
>>>> So, according to one of the posters:
>>>>
>>>> "In a system with 4 discrete processors - each capable of running
>>>> multiple threads, each having enormous memory bandwidth and access
>>>> to immense bus speeds there is one obvious bottleneck - and that
>>>> is the mechanical/magnetic hard disk drive."
>>>>
>>>> Ok, great. So Apple sells a computer has disks too slow for their
>>>> processors?
>>>
>>> No, that is a general bottleneck in teh PC world atm.
>>
>> But it has never been a problem before, and isn't a problem on my
>> Macbook Pro where I have even slower disks.
>
> Then it is a problem of the SATA controller, the firmware and/or a
> combination of these two and the system software.
Or the user... though I have heard of others with similar problems, so in
this case it might not be user error on Sandman's part.
>>> If you think the drive limitations is the source of your problems,
>>> you should move to SCSI/SAS drives, which operate at 15.000 RPM, ie.
>>> twice as fast at typical SAT drives.
>>
>> I would if I could, but I can't order a Mac Pro with SAS drives...
>
> Ordet a SAS incerface card and get the drives seperately, then.
Assuming he knows how...
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1169228361.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah oh lost one, depending on what he does, he's probably going to need
> > > some of that extra storage anyway.
> >
> > I can almost hear your weak, nasally voice whine that out. His
> > problem wasn't running out of storage space, Jimbob. It is that the
> > HDs Apple includes are too slow.
>
> Or the bus/processor too fast. :)
Funny joke. Does it ease the pain of your extra expense?
> > > You folks who do a lot of images,
> > > maybe movies/DVD's or graphic design, all of which eat space and I
> > > haven't even gotten to audio.
> >
> > My $850 HP computer came with an HD that is big enough and fast enough
> > to handle any of that. Why can't the same be said for a $2,500 (or
> > more) MacPro?
>
> Because the Mac Pro is a high end system,
Yet you had to spend lots more money to get performance out of your
system...
> as opposed to your low-end
> budget system.
... while my system has excellent performance right out of the box.
Snit
1169248685.1...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com on 1/19/07 4:18 PM:
>
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <1169228361.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yeah oh lost one, depending on what he does, he's probably going to need
>>>> some of that extra storage anyway.
>>>
>>> I can almost hear your weak, nasally voice whine that out. His
>>> problem wasn't running out of storage space, Jimbob. It is that the
>>> HDs Apple includes are too slow.
>>
>> Or the bus/processor too fast. :)
>
> Funny joke. Does it ease the pain of your extra expense?
>
>>>> You folks who do a lot of images,
>>>> maybe movies/DVD's or graphic design, all of which eat space and I
>>>> haven't even gotten to audio.
>>>
>>> My $850 HP computer came with an HD that is big enough and fast enough
>>> to handle any of that. Why can't the same be said for a $2,500 (or
>>> more) MacPro?
>>
>> Because the Mac Pro is a high end system,
>
> Yet you had to spend lots more money to get performance out of your
> system...
Sandman needs to take some basic computer classes to get any real
performance from his machines... when he is done with that he can try to
learn CSS, HTML, and some pro web tools such as Dreamweaver. He *still* is
struggling to get his CSS and HTML to validate - though he is doing a better
job than he did in the past.
>> as opposed to your low-end
>> budget system.
>
> ... while my system has excellent performance right out of the box.
Maybe you know how to use your system.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Or IF you had bothered to READ all of the posts in this thread, even snit might
be able to see the reason, and it's quite apparently NOT user error.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1169228698.7...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > Edwin is clueless as usual, the problem wasn't the mac per se, it was
> > > the drive mechanism.
> >
> > The type of drive mechanism Apple chose to install in that expensive
> > computer was the problem.
>
> Indeed. Hence the "This seriously sucks, Apple".
Hence you paid lots more to fix an already expensive computer.
> > And it's hilarious to be called "clueless" by dweebs who think it's
> > perfectly alright to have to buy extra expensive HD to get performance
> > out of an already expensive Apple computer.
>
> The solution to the problem is more expensive hard drives from the
> beginning.
Sure it is, but Apple sells overpriced and underpowered computers.
As Nashton told you, there's always something missing when you buy an
Apple computer.
> What I had to pay more for was the 750GB drive that came
> with the Mac, not for the extra drives I bought after that.
How did you buy extra drives without adding to the price of your
computer?
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1169223426....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
> > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> >
> > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
>
> How did pinpointing and solving a problem
Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
that costs so much.
> make my claim about Nicolas
> cluelessness less valid, if that is what you mean?
What he wrote is right on the money, taken in context of this thread.
Small wonder you snip so much. You've not only invalidated your
opinions of him, you've dropped your credibility in general even lower
than it usually is.
Snit
>
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <1169228698.7...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Edwin is clueless as usual, the problem wasn't the mac per se, it was
>>>> the drive mechanism.
>>>
>>> The type of drive mechanism Apple chose to install in that expensive
>>> computer was the problem.
>>
>> Indeed. Hence the "This seriously sucks, Apple".
>
> Hence you paid lots more to fix an already expensive computer.
>
>>> And it's hilarious to be called "clueless" by dweebs who think it's
>>> perfectly alright to have to buy extra expensive HD to get performance
>>> out of an already expensive Apple computer.
>>
>> The solution to the problem is more expensive hard drives from the
>> beginning.
>
> Sure it is, but Apple sells overpriced and underpowered computers.
> As Nashton told you, there's always something missing when you buy an
> Apple computer.
In Sandman's case: the "missing part" is a skilled operator. Getting a high
priced pro machine for someone who is as unskilled as Sandman is a waste of
a good machine... unless that person is willing to learn. Sandman resists
learning generally, and even when he does show signs of growth he belittles
those who teach him.
>> What I had to pay more for was the 750GB drive that came
>> with the Mac, not for the extra drives I bought after that.
>
> How did you buy extra drives without adding to the price of your
> computer?
He has talked about pirating software - maybe he steals hardware.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
John
I doubt if he will EVER get his CSS and HTML right. No wonder he was fired
from the web designer job many years ago.
ZnU
> So I recently bought a Mac Pro, and some of you may remember the
> strange benchmarks I was having with it:
>
> http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
>
> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
This sounds like a hardware problem. I've seen OS X behave this way with
failing drives. I haven't ever seen it do this with healthy drives.
Hitting swap sufficiently hard can also cause the entire system to
become unresponsive, but based on your buying habits I'm going to guess
you've got plenty of RAM.
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
> > In article <1169223426....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
> > > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> > >
> > > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> >
> > How did pinpointing and solving a problem
>
> Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> that costs so much.
Which means he made an error in his initial purchase.
Should Apple offer SAS drives? Of course. But since they didn't, Sandman
could have bought the smallest drive Apple offers and then bought
aftermarket drives.
Snit
6fednUUCdrsR9CzY...@netlojix.com on 1/19/07 5:59 PM:
As of right now his HTML for the home page of sandman.net fails with 17
errors - his CSS with 1 (though it is a minor error). He is slowly getting
better... for now.
Then again, his csma.sandman.net site currently is just a brushed metal
background. Try it: <http://csma.sandman.net>. Shows the same thing with
both Safari and Firefox, and I even VLCd to another machine to make sure he
was not messing with requests from my IP.
Amazing how incompetent he is for one who calls himself a "pro" in that
field.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
znu-BAC058.2...@individual.net on 1/19/07 6:20 PM:
> In article <mr-D87AAD.13...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> So I recently bought a Mac Pro, and some of you may remember the
>> strange benchmarks I was having with it:
>>
>> http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
>>
>> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
>> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
>> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
>> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
>> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
>
> This sounds like a hardware problem. I've seen OS X behave this way with
> failing drives. I haven't ever seen it do this with healthy drives.
>
> Hitting swap sufficiently hard can also cause the entire system to
> become unresponsive, but based on your buying habits I'm going to guess
> you've got plenty of RAM.
Agreed - it may be a hardware issue... or a poor understanding of the
situation based on Sandman's ignorance. I am glad, though, that his
hardware seems to be working for him at this point - now he can focus,
hopefully, on his education so he can make good use of his machine and not
have sites that fall apart such as his "official" CSMA site is doing now:
<http://csma.sandman.net/>.
Why would a "pro" have his sites fail so often?
Nashton
So Edwin's low-end system has a faster hard drive than your high end Mac.
And you think this can be construed as an example as to why Macs are
better than PCs?
WTF, do you even have a brain?
--
Nicolas
Snit
7:42 PM:
The low end Macs do not have faster hard drives... Sandman is ignorant.
Mr. Blonde
Snit wrote:
> As of right now his HTML
Quick question...which is better, a website with validating HTML and
CSS that looks like shit, or a clean, well organized and visually
appealing website like the one Sandman authored that might throw a few
errors to a auotmated syntax checker? Which of the two would somone
looking to hire a web designer be more impressed by?
Snit
1169265387.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com on 1/19/07 8:56 PM:
Both are important - bad code can lead to lower ranking on search engines,
greater difficulty for people with handicaps, and other such problems. HTML
and CSS, however, are not the only areas where Sandman has had need of my
help. From a past post, to Sandman, in reference to his sandman.net site:
-----
* your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
* your CSS does not validate correctly
* your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of whitespace
* your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
-----
Each of those were important, and most have been improved - both his CSS and
HTML are *better* than they were (even if still flawed), his use of contrast
and white space has improved, and his images are no longer habitually
grossly larger than they need be.
I assume you are asking your question because you feel that good visual
design is more important. If so, I would agree that good visual design *is*
important but that good technical design is *also* important - but the
technical side is the one that is more easily tested *and*, while Sandman
was dishonest in regards to both "sides", it is the technical side where he
was more emphatically dishonest. This was foolish of him being that the
technical side is the one that was easier to empirically prove with hard
data that he was lying. This does not mean there are not other lies of his
that are easy to show, such as his silly claims against Dreamweaver being a
pro tool, but his lies about his CSS are so heavily contradicted by *years*
of evidence about his *personal* skills that it is a more powerful lie of
his to focus on. Sandman simply is a liar.
Worse than that: Not only did Sandman lie and deny his CSS had failed to
validate before I showed him how to validate it, he dishonestly spewed all
sorts of accusations against me to try to hide his incompetence. I do not
appreciate Sandman denigrating me to try to hide his own failings.
Snit
1169265387.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com on 1/19/07 8:56 PM:
>
One last thought: if you would, please visit <html://csma.sandman.net> and
tell me what you think of its content, its organization, and its visual
appeal. Describe what you see... then tell me you would be ready to hire
the author of that site to be *your* "pro" web designer.
One caveat: once Sandman sees I am talking about that page of his he is
likely to quickly change it and deny it ever was a problem for him... or
blame hardware failures... or make some other excuse. It is a game he has
played *many* times.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Snit
C1D6E5CA.71B11%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID on 1/19/07 9:16 PM:
> "Mr. Blonde" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> stated in post
> 1169265387.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com on 1/19/07 8:56 PM:
>
>>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> As of right now his HTML
>>
>>
>> Quick question...which is better, a website with validating HTML and
>> CSS that looks like shit, or a clean, well organized and visually
>> appealing website like the one Sandman authored that might throw a few
>> errors to a auotmated syntax checker? Which of the two would somone
>> looking to hire a web designer be more impressed by?
>>
> One last thought: if you would, please visit <html://csma.sandman.net>
Do'h! Typo: <http://csma.sandman.net>
> and tell me what you think of its content, its organization, and its visual
> appeal. Describe what you see... then tell me you would be ready to hire the
> author of that site to be *your* "pro" web designer.
>
> One caveat: once Sandman sees I am talking about that page of his he is likely
> to quickly change it and deny it ever was a problem for him... or blame
> hardware failures... or make some other excuse. It is a game he has played
> *many* times.
--
Mr. Blonde
Snit wrote:
> Both are important - bad code
Hold the phone. An automated syntax checker throwing a few error codes
does not always indicate bad code. If Sandman's home page
(www.sandman.net) is as poorly designed as you seem to imply it is,
surely you could point to some tangible hiccup or puke it causes in any
popular web browser. I've looked at it with three of them and all of
his pages, links, scripts, etc. seem to work perfectly. Your claim
that his site isn't "professional grade" doesn't seem to hold water.
Secondly, yes, visual design is by far the more important skill. An
HTML/CSS code whiz with maringal visual design skills will never be as
employable as a lesser skilled programmer who can create easy to
navigate, well organized, visually appealing websites.
Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that your obsession with
Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him. Killfilling
someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet you
piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
website's validation status more often than most people check their
e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual.
Michelle Ronn
>> You folks who do a lot of images,
>> maybe movies/DVD's or graphic design, all of which eat space and I
>> haven't even gotten to audio.
>
> My $850 HP computer came with an HD that is big enough and fast enough
> to handle any of that. Why can't the same be said for a $2,500 (or
> more) MacPro?
What drive did you $850 HP come with?
Michelle Ronn
>
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <1169223426....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
>>>> and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
>>>
>>> According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
>>> Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
>>
>> How did pinpointing and solving a problem
>
> Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> that costs so much.
You are confusing a design flaw with a configuration problem. If
Sandman needed fast I/O, he should have started with drives that can
deliver that I/O to begin with. Problem solved.
7200 RPM SATA drives are good enough for most of the market. If you
need more, you can pay more and get SAS. This assumes he needs faster
random I/O.
Wouldn't be any different for a PC.
Michelle Ronn
>
> No, that is a general bottleneck in teh PC world atm. If you think the
> drive limitations is the source of your problems, you should move to
> SCSI/SAS drives, which operate at 15.000 RPM, ie. twice as fast at
> typical SAT drives.
The extra RPM is not what buys you much. It does buy you a little.
SAS/SCSI is much more efficient with random I/O than SATA. The more
random your I/O, the more SAS/SCSI has an advantage. If you do pure
sequential I/O, it is pretty much a wash.
I always found it funny that hard drives manufacturers advertise
sequential I/O, when many real world applications tend to be random.
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <mr-D87AAD.13...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > So I recently bought a Mac Pro, and some of you may remember the
> > strange benchmarks I was having with it:
> >
> > http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
> >
> > So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> > whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> > *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> > ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
> > slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
>
> This sounds like a hardware problem. I've seen OS X behave this way with
> failing drives. I haven't ever seen it do this with healthy drives.
Hmmm, so Apple shipped a bad drive? How do I test this?
> Hitting swap sufficiently hard can also cause the entire system to
> become unresponsive, but based on your buying habits I'm going to guess
> you've got plenty of RAM.
Yeah, 4GB should be enough.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Edwin is clueless as usual, the problem wasn't the mac per se, it was
> > > > the drive mechanism.
> > >
> > > The type of drive mechanism Apple chose to install in that expensive
> > > computer was the problem.
> >
> > Indeed. Hence the "This seriously sucks, Apple".
>
> Hence you paid lots more to fix an already expensive computer.
Trust me, the money wasn't the issue here. It was the HD that was
shipped with Macs. I.e. I would have gladly spent the same amount of
money to not have this problem from the beginning. But ZnU is
suggesting that it could have been a bad drive...
> > > And it's hilarious to be called "clueless" by dweebs who think it's
> > > perfectly alright to have to buy extra expensive HD to get performance
> > > out of an already expensive Apple computer.
> >
> > The solution to the problem is more expensive hard drives from the
> > beginning.
>
> Sure it is, but Apple sells overpriced and underpowered computers.
You mean overpowered.
> As Nashton told you, there's always something missing when you buy an
> Apple computer.
What is always missing? Imagine a PC - where a working operating
system is missing!
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > I can almost hear your weak, nasally voice whine that out. His
> > > problem wasn't running out of storage space, Jimbob. It is that the
> > > HDs Apple includes are too slow.
> >
> > Or the bus/processor too fast. :)
>
> Funny joke.
Which one?
> > Because the Mac Pro is a high end system,
>
> Yet you had to spend lots more money to get performance out of your
> system...
Man spends money on high end system, news at eleven.
>> as opposed to your low-end budget system.
>
> ... while my system has excellent performance right out of the box.
Haha!
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Mr. Blonde" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
Snit is still busy obsessing over my web pages? I better keep looking
in my log files for any flooding from him. Last time he flooded my
site almost three hundred thousand times. :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Mr. Blonde" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
Hehe, Snit claims to have killfiled me? That's rich :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > Because the Mac Pro is a high end system, as opposed to your low-end
> > budget system.
>
> So Edwin's low-end system has a faster hard drive than your high end Mac.
Hehe, of course not.
> And you think this can be construed as an example as to why Macs are
> better than PCs?
No, the Mac doesn't need any help for that, really. And Windows
doesn't need poor hardware to freeze up the system. Just burn a CD or
something and the entire operating system grinds to a halt.
> WTF, do you even have a brain?
Are you looking for one?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
> > > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> > >
> > > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> >
> > How did pinpointing and solving a problem
>
> Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> that costs so much.
Exactly.
> > make my claim about Nicolas
> > cluelessness less valid, if that is what you mean?
>
> What he wrote is right on the money
With "right on the money" meaning "totally irrelevant and clueless
bullshit". I.e. just like always with Nashton (and you, by the way).
> taken in context of this thread.
> Small wonder you snip so much. You've not only invalidated your
> opinions of him, you've dropped your credibility in general even lower
> than it usually is.
Thanks for the endorsement with regards to my credibility. Now all we
need is Michael agreeing with you and I'll be just fine :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > that costs so much.
>
> Which means he made an error in his initial purchase.
Well, the problem is that Apple doesn't seem to offer a HD that has
higher performance. All seems to have similar performance (3 gbit/s).
I don't know about seek time though.
ZnU seems to suggest that this might have been a bad drive, though.
> Should Apple offer SAS drives? Of course. But since they didn't, Sandman
> could have bought the smallest drive Apple offers and then bought
> aftermarket drives.
Yeah, that's what I would have done if I had known.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Michelle Ronn <mic...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >>>> Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
> >>>> and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> >>>
> >>> According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> >>> Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> >>
> >> How did pinpointing and solving a problem
> >
> > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > that costs so much.
>
> You are confusing a design flaw with a configuration problem. If
> Sandman needed fast I/O, he should have started with drives that can
> deliver that I/O to begin with. Problem solved.
I don't really need high I/O, since I don't consider the need for my
system to not freeze when I import images into iPhoto to constitute
the need for high I/O.
I've never had this problem with any other ATA disk, regardless of
speed.
> 7200 RPM SATA drives are good enough for most of the market. If you
> need more, you can pay more and get SAS. This assumes he needs faster
> random I/O.
>
> Wouldn't be any different for a PC.
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >>
> >
> > No, that is a general bottleneck in teh PC world atm. If you think the
> > drive limitations is the source of your problems, you should move to
> > SCSI/SAS drives, which operate at 15.000 RPM, ie. twice as fast at
> > typical SAT drives.
>
>
> The extra RPM is not what buys you much.
It buys you significantly higher throghput, but I concede that wirth
random I/O as you mention, seek and bus latency becomes a factor.
> It does buy you a little.
> SAS/SCSI is much more efficient with random I/O than SATA. The more
> random your I/O, the more SAS/SCSI has an advantage. If you do pure
> sequential I/O, it is pretty much a wash.
>
> I always found it funny that hard drives manufacturers advertise
> sequential I/O, when many real world applications tend to be random.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
"If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?"
John C. Randolph
> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> ten seconds generally.
That's either the disk spinning down, or virtual-memory thrashing.
First, try changing your energy saver preferences so that the disk
doesn't spin down. If that doesn't do the trick, increase the amount
of memory in the machine.
-jcr
C Lund
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Power management is not the friend of people that favor
> responsive computers. Face it, your computer is /not/ the
> biggest consumer of electricity in your house, not by a long
> shot, so get over it and turn off all the power management
> features and move along. Face the fact that you will be solely
> responsible for raising the average temperature of the planet by
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and
> get on with your day.
Nothing I do has a noticeable effect on the biosphere - as long as I'm
the only one who does it. But all that power that is wasted in
idle/standby mode adds up when enough people do it. For instance:
"Britons waste the equivalent of around two power stations' worth of
electricity each year by leaving TV sets and other gadgets on standby."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4620350.stm
It makes no difference when I'm the only one who does [whatever], but
if everybody acts the same way, the effect is noticeable.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > I've noticed that my second HD - which I use
> > only for backups - falls to sleep when unused for a certain amount of
> > time. It takes a second or two for it to wake up again. But that
> > doesn't seem to affect the entire OS...
>
> Yeah, you can turn that off in Energy Saver preferences. And no,
> that's not my problem here...
Oh. Well, it was just a thought.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
>
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Both are important - bad code
>
>
> Hold the phone. An automated syntax checker throwing a few error codes
> does not always indicate bad code. If Sandman's home page
> (www.sandman.net) is as poorly designed as you seem to imply it is,
> surely you could point to some tangible hiccup or puke it causes in any
> popular web browser. I've looked at it with three of them and all of
> his pages, links, scripts, etc. seem to work perfectly. Your claim
> that his site isn't "professional grade" doesn't seem to hold water.
In the past I have pointed out a number of broken links, images that were
compressed poorly, missing alt tags, and other things that effect load times
and accessibility. I have also pointed out the fact his CSS and HTML fails
to validate. Sandman lies and denies. That is not the sign of a pro web
designer *I* would suggest anyone hire.
> Secondly, yes, visual design is by far the more important skill. An
> HTML/CSS code whiz with maringal visual design skills will never be as
> employable as a lesser skilled programmer who can create easy to
> navigate, well organized, visually appealing websites.
And I have pointed out areas of visual design: white space, contrast, color
choice, etc. Sandman has altered his site in ways consistent with my
suggestions - and then dishonestly denied doing so.
Also, did you check out his csma.sandman.net site? While it is now working,
yesterday it showed only a brushed metal background. It was, effectively,
down.
> Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that your obsession with
> Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him.
Er? I am "obsessed" with truth.
> Killfilling someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet you
> piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his website's
> validation status more often than most people check their e-mail. These are
> not the actions of a mentally balanced individual.
I have automated tools to check for validation... hardly something I put
effort into. But, yes, I do have fun rubbing Sandman's lies into his face,
even now.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Sandman
John C. Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> > So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
> > whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
> > *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
> > ten seconds generally.
>
> That's either the disk spinning down, or virtual-memory thrashing.
Well, the disk obviously doesn't spin down when in use, and I have 4GB
of memory in this Mac, so it's not swap either. Plus, swapping doesn't
freeze up the *entire* system. I.e. nothing responds.
--
Sandman[.net]
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <mr-CC1CF0.22...@News.Individual.NET>):
> In article <1hs78vj.1q9g1vjhk8yajN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk>,
> pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>
>>> So, according to one of the posters:
>>>
>>> "In a system with 4 discrete processors - each capable of running
>>> multiple threads, each having enormous memory bandwidth and access
>>> to immense bus speeds there is one obvious bottleneck - and that
>>> is the mechanical/magnetic hard disk drive."
>>>
>>> Ok, great. So Apple sells a computer has disks too slow for their
>>> processors?
>>
>> No, that is a general bottleneck in teh PC world atm.
>
> But it has never been a problem before, and isn't a problem on my
> Macbook Pro where I have even slower disks.
If it's a brand new system, could be a lot of things, like the
spotlight crap running in the background. Could be flaky
firmware on the drive, but those problems in the past were
related to using drives in the Mac that Apple hadn't certified,
shouldn't be your problem here.
Poke around with activity monitor or top when it starts
happening, and try to figure out what, if anything is hitting
the drive.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <mr-DE08AA.08...@News.Individual.NET>):
> In article <znu-BAC058.2...@individual.net>,
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <mr-D87AAD.13...@News.Individual.NET>,
>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So I recently bought a Mac Pro, and some of you may remember the
>>> strange benchmarks I was having with it:
>>>
>>> http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
>>>
>>> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
>>> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
>>> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
>>> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
>>> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
>>
>> This sounds like a hardware problem. I've seen OS X behave this way with
>> failing drives. I haven't ever seen it do this with healthy drives.
>
> Hmmm, so Apple shipped a bad drive? How do I test this?
There is an OSX app called something like "SmartReporter" that
monitors the SMART (acronym) hard drive status reporting for
errors and predictive failure alerts. That's be a good place to
start.
Sandman
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> > But it has never been a problem before, and isn't a problem on my
> > Macbook Pro where I have even slower disks.
>
> If it's a brand new system, could be a lot of things, like the
> spotlight crap running in the background.
Not for several weeks. :)
> Could be flaky firmware on the drive, but those problems in the past
> were related to using drives in the Mac that Apple hadn't certified,
> shouldn't be your problem here.
Ok..
> Poke around with activity monitor or top when it starts
> happening, and try to figure out what, if anything is hitting
> the drive.
Well, obviously iPhoto is using the drive when I import stuff to
iPhoto. But there is nothing in top that shows what's happening, nor
in the console.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> > Hmmm, so Apple shipped a bad drive? How do I test this?
>
> There is an OSX app called something like "SmartReporter" that
> monitors the SMART (acronym) hard drive status reporting for
> errors and predictive failure alerts. That's be a good place to
> start.
~> diskutil info /Volumes/BigDisk/
...
SMART Status: Verified
...
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
0001HW.C1D7CAB5...@news.verizon.net on 1/20/07 12:33 PM:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:32:22 -0600, Sandman wrote
> (in article <mr-DE08AA.08...@News.Individual.NET>):
>
>> In article <znu-BAC058.2...@individual.net>,
>> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <mr-D87AAD.13...@News.Individual.NET>,
>>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I recently bought a Mac Pro, and some of you may remember the
>>>> strange benchmarks I was having with it:
>>>>
>>>> http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
>>>>
>>>> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
>>>> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
>>>> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
>>>> ten seconds generally. This, of course, made the Mac perform inanely
>>>> slow at times when hard drives access was concerned.
>>>
>>> This sounds like a hardware problem. I've seen OS X behave this way with
>>> failing drives. I haven't ever seen it do this with healthy drives.
>>
>> Hmmm, so Apple shipped a bad drive? How do I test this?
>
> There is an OSX app called something like "SmartReporter" that
> monitors the SMART (acronym) hard drive status reporting for
> errors and predictive failure alerts. That's be a good place to
> start.
>
I believe OS X does a SMART check on startup now... at least I think I read
that somewhere. It does not do repeated checks as other tools do...
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <mr-D8201E.20...@News.Individual.NET>):
> In article <0001HW.C1D7CAB5...@news.verizon.net>,
> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>>> Hmmm, so Apple shipped a bad drive? How do I test this?
>>
>> There is an OSX app called something like "SmartReporter" that
>> monitors the SMART (acronym) hard drive status reporting for
>> errors and predictive failure alerts. That's be a good place to
>> start.
>
>>> diskutil info /Volumes/BigDisk/
> ...
> SMART Status: Verified
Cool. Didn't realize that was in there. I wonder if it is
cached from mount time, or if it polls it periodically, as the
other tool does?
Anyway, if something is wrong with your drive, the drive itself
hasn't figured it out yet.
I remember there was something on my Intel mac that made the CPU
load go nuts early on when I first got it, causing everything to
slow down. Don't remember the details though, think it might
have been related to a network mounted drive being retried all
the time when the system the share was on went away. Doesn't
sound like the same issue though.
Steve de Mena
I thought NCQ (native command queuing) in the
latest SATA drives was supposed to help in that
area (random access)? Or is that something different?
Steve
Lawson English
If there is a bug in the OS, the disk just might be spinning down for
sleep, even though it is in use.
My dual-G5 has something of the same problem, when using certain
software, but it's not a 100% consistent thing, as far as I can tell.
Edwin
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1169254358.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
> > > > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> > > >
> > > > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > > > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> > >
> > > How did pinpointing and solving a problem
> >
> > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > that costs so much.
>
I agree with you that he made a mistake to buy an Apple computer.
> Should Apple offer SAS drives? Of course. But since they didn't, Sandman
> could have bought the smallest drive Apple offers and then bought
> aftermarket drives.
You're honestly saying it's not okay to trust the Apple to include
components that deliver acceptable performance, you must have technical
expertese in order to not be cheated, and even if you do have that, the
best you can do is to minimize how much you're cheated, not avoid it?
[snip]
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <1169254358.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sandman wrote:
> > > > In article <1169223426....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in
> > > > > > general
> > > > > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > > > > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> > > >
> > > > How did pinpointing and solving a problem
> > >
> > > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > > that costs so much.
> >
> > Which means he made an error in his initial purchase.
>
> I agree with you that he made a mistake to buy an Apple computer.
Nope. His error was in his choice of hard drive.
>
> > Should Apple offer SAS drives? Of course. But since they didn't, Sandman
> > could have bought the smallest drive Apple offers and then bought
> > aftermarket drives.
>
> You're honestly saying it's not okay to trust the Apple to include
> components that deliver acceptable performance, you must have technical
> expertese in order to not be cheated, and even if you do have that, the
> best you can do is to minimize how much you're cheated, not avoid it?
I never said anything like that.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-F64A4...@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > > that costs so much.
> >
> > Which means he made an error in his initial purchase.
>
> Well, the problem is that Apple doesn't seem to offer a HD that has
> higher performance. All seems to have similar performance (3 gbit/s).
> I don't know about seek time though.
IOW, Apple's computers are overpriced and underpowered.
> ZnU seems to suggest that this might have been a bad drive, though.
ZnU will offer up any excuse he can invent to save Apple, even if he
doesn't believe what he wrote himself!
> > Should Apple offer SAS drives? Of course. But since they didn't, Sandman
> > could have bought the smallest drive Apple offers and then bought
> > aftermarket drives.
>
> Yeah, that's what I would have done if I had known.
IOW, don't buy an Apple computer unless you're a technical expert?
And even at that you still end up with an HD you don't want, plus the
extra expense of finding and installing your own HD?
You should have known, BTW. You've had years of warnings...
Edwin
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1169348777.6...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <1169254358.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sandman wrote:
> > > > > In article <1169223426....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in
> > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > > > > > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> > > > >
> > > > > How did pinpointing and solving a problem
> > > >
> > > > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > > > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > > > that costs so much.
> > >
> > > Which means he made an error in his initial purchase.
> >
> > I agree with you that he made a mistake to buy an Apple computer.
>
> Nope. His error was in his choice of hard drive.
You misspelled "yes, you're absolutely correct." Apple doesn't give
him the correct choice of hard drive, they force him to take one that
is insufficient. You coming up with ways to dance around that
doesn't make it any less true.
> >
> > > Should Apple offer SAS drives? Of course. But since they didn't, Sandman
> > > could have bought the smallest drive Apple offers and then bought
> > > aftermarket drives.
> >
> > You're honestly saying it's not okay to trust the Apple to include
> > components that deliver acceptable performance, you must have technical
> > expertese in order to not be cheated, and even if you do have that, the
> > best you can do is to minimize how much you're cheated, not avoid it?
>
> I never said anything like that.
Yes you did. You're just too stupid to realize what your own words
mean up there. You're saying the buyer should have technical
expertese enough to know Apple's drives are too slow, and to pick out
his own third party replacements. Yet you still have to buy one of
Apple's worthless HD, and you can only minimize that by chosing the
smallest HD offered, you can't avoid it.
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1169254358.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
> > > > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> > > >
> > > > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > > > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> > >
> > > How did pinpointing and solving a problem
> >
> > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > that costs so much.
>
> Exactly.
That admission makes what Nashton wrote about you correct.
> > > make my claim about Nicolas
> > > cluelessness less valid, if that is what you mean?
> >
> > What he wrote is right on the money
>
>
> With "right on the money" meaning "totally irrelevant and clueless
> bullshit". I.e. just like always with Nashton (and you, by the way).
It doesn't mean that at all. It means he's correct in what he wrote
about you, and you confirmed it yourself.
> > taken in context of this thread.
> > Small wonder you snip so much. You've not only invalidated your
> > opinions of him, you've dropped your credibility in general even lower
> > than it usually is.
>
> Thanks for the endorsement with regards to my credibility. Now all we
> need is Michael agreeing with you and I'll be just fine :-D
It's amazing you can be so oblivious to how much of an idiot you're
making out of yourself.
Edwin
Michelle Ronn wrote:> >> In article <1169223426....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in general
> >>>> and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> >>>
> >>> According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> >>> Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> >>
> >> How did pinpointing and solving a problem
> >
> > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > that costs so much.
>
>
I thought Apple's computers were supposed to "just work," not leave you
debating whether their problems are a desgin flaw or a configuation
problem.
> If
> Sandman needed fast I/O, he should have started with drives that can
> deliver that I/O to begin with. Problem solved.
Apple doesn't offer the option of the correct drives. You have to buy
those third party, and take Apple's incorrect drive as well.
> 7200 RPM SATA drives are good enough for most of the market. If you
> need more, you can pay more and get SAS. This assumes he needs faster
> random I/O.
Sandman has already shot down your assumptions above, in his answer to
you.
> Wouldn't be any different for a PC.
Sure it is. I don't have any performance issues in my $850 PC, like
Sandman has in his Mac that cost considerably more than $2500.
Michelle Ronn
> debating whether their problems are a desgin flaw or a configuation
> problem.
>
They do. I have 4 x 500GB 7200 RPM SATA drives in mine, and they work
just fine.
Quieter than any PC workstation I have ever had...
Can't say the same for my Dell workstation in the office. Ordered it
with 2 x 500GB SATA drives. I removed the jumpers from them to get the
performance that I paid for (they were set to 150MB/sec instead of
300MB/sec), and the system would not see the drives at the higher
speed. After much arguing, I got a replacement after 3 months.
Looks like a PC vendor attempted to rip me off.
Michelle Ronn
It does help, a bit. To oversimplify the process greatly, the drive
will respond to commands out of order, depending on where it is on the
disk. However, much of this processing happens in the driver, or higher
in the stack. SCSI and SAS drives do it on the device. CPU over head on
the processor (SATA) vs drive (SAS/SCSI)
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
SMART doesn't catch everything. The only real way to know is to replace
the drive with a similar one and see if the problem goes away.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
ZnU
Michelle Ronn <mic...@invalid.net> wrote:
The CPU overhead for this is negligible on modern systems.
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in
> > > > > > general
> > > > > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > > > > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> > > >
> > > > How did pinpointing and solving a problem
> > >
> > > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > > that costs so much.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> That admission makes what Nashton wrote about you correct.
Nopes.
> > > > make my claim about Nicolas
> > > > cluelessness less valid, if that is what you mean?
> > >
> > > What he wrote is right on the money
> >
> > With "right on the money" meaning "totally irrelevant and clueless
> > bullshit". I.e. just like always with Nashton (and you, by the way).
>
> It doesn't mean that at all. It means he's correct in what he wrote
> about you, and you confirmed it yourself.
In the mind of a self-admitted troll that is as clueless about
computers as Nashton, i.e. Edwin himself.
> > Thanks for the endorsement with regards to my credibility. Now all we
> > need is Michael agreeing with you and I'll be just fine :-D
>
> It's amazing you can be so oblivious to how much of an idiot you're
> making out of yourself.
Thanks again.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Which means he made an error in his initial purchase.
> >
> > Well, the problem is that Apple doesn't seem to offer a HD that has
> > higher performance. All seems to have similar performance (3 gbit/s).
> > I don't know about seek time though.
>
> IOW, Apple's computers are overpriced and underpowered.
No, they are cheap and overpowered. The harddrives seems underpowered.
> > ZnU seems to suggest that this might have been a bad drive, though.
>
> ZnU will offer up any excuse he can invent to save Apple, even if he
> doesn't believe what he wrote himself!
And you will offer up any excuse to the contrary even though you're
embarrassingly clueless about computers.
> > > Should Apple offer SAS drives? Of course. But since they didn't, Sandman
> > > could have bought the smallest drive Apple offers and then bought
> > > aftermarket drives.
> >
> > Yeah, that's what I would have done if I had known.
>
> IOW, don't buy an Apple computer unless you're a technical expert?
Well, maybe - you don't have a Mac, do you?
> And even at that you still end up with an HD you don't want
What? Sure I want it. I need the space. You don't seem to understand.
I've not bought MORE drives than I would if Apple had offered the
right drives from the start.
What I bought:
1 x 750GB HD
What I ended up with:
1 x 750GB HD
2 x 150GB WD Raptor
What I would have bought if Apple would have offered high-performing
HD's:
2 x 250GB WD Raptor
1 x 750GB HB
Are you getting it yet?
> plus the extra expense of finding and installing your own HD?
I.e. no extra expense. And why the fixation with cost? Money is far
from the issue here.
--
Sandman[.net]
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <znu-A89499.0...@individual.net>):
> In article <mr-D8201E.20...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <0001HW.C1D7CAB5...@news.verizon.net>,
>> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hmmm, so Apple shipped a bad drive? How do I test this?
>>>
>>> There is an OSX app called something like "SmartReporter" that
>>> monitors the SMART (acronym) hard drive status reporting for
>>> errors and predictive failure alerts. That's be a good place to
>>> start.
>>
>>>> diskutil info /Volumes/BigDisk/
>> ...
>> SMART Status: Verified
>> ...
>
> SMART doesn't catch everything. The only real way to know is to replace
> the drive with a similar one and see if the problem goes away.
It's not the drive, unless it's a firmware bug. Try installing
the OS on an external firewire drive and see if you can
reproduce it running from there. My money is on some process
waking up on some interval (like a traditional cron job) and
beating the shit out of the drive for short bursts.
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > You are confusing a design flaw with a configuration problem.
>
> I thought Apple's computers were supposed to "just work,"
Indeed they do. They're great!
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:40:04 -0600, ZnU wrote (in article
> <znu-A89499.0...@individual.net>):
>
> > In article <mr-D8201E.20...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <0001HW.C1D7CAB5...@news.verizon.net>,
> >> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Hmmm, so Apple shipped a bad drive? How do I test this?
> >>>
> >>> There is an OSX app called something like "SmartReporter" that
> >>> monitors the SMART (acronym) hard drive status reporting for
> >>> errors and predictive failure alerts. That's be a good place to
> >>> start.
> >>
> >>>> diskutil info /Volumes/BigDisk/
> >> ... SMART Status: Verified ...
> >
> > SMART doesn't catch everything. The only real way to know is to
> > replace the drive with a similar one and see if the problem goes
> > away.
>
> It's not the drive, unless it's a firmware bug.
I've seen this behavior at least three times with flaky drives. Whether
it was the firmware or something else, I've got no idea.
> Try installing the OS on an external firewire drive and see if you
> can reproduce it running from there. My money is on some process
> waking up on some interval (like a traditional cron job) and beating
> the shit out of the drive for short bursts.
If the system really becomes totally unresponsive (i.e. even stops
responding to mouse clicks), this seems fairly unlikely. Even if the
drive is completely pegged, you shouldn't see that kind of behavior.
Steve Carroll
"Mr. Blonde" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
> > Both are important - bad code
>
>
> Hold the phone. An automated syntax checker throwing a few error codes
> does not always indicate bad code. If Sandman's home page
> (www.sandman.net) is as poorly designed as you seem to imply it is,
> surely you could point to some tangible hiccup or puke it causes in any
> popular web browser. I've looked at it with three of them and all of
> his pages, links, scripts, etc. seem to work perfectly.
Same here.
> Your claim
> that his site isn't "professional grade" doesn't seem to hold water.
>
> Secondly, yes, visual design is by far the more important skill. An
> HTML/CSS code whiz with maringal visual design skills will never be as
> employable as a lesser skilled programmer who can create easy to
> navigate, well organized, visually appealing websites.
I'd like to see Snit grow a backbone and point to one of his
professional websites so readers can compare the visual aspects with
Sandman's site... but he refuses. For a guy that whined how people are
not defined by the definitions as given by others but are instead
defined by their actions, Snit's action of refusing to show his own work
while simultaneously denigrating Sandman's work speaks volumes.
> Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that your obsession with
> Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him. Killfilling
> someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet you
> piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
> website's validation status more often than most people check their
> e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual.
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" -
"I am a bigger liar than Steve" - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Lawson English
> On 2007-01-19 04:01:52 -0800, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> said:
>
>> So, apart from this benchmark, I noticed something VERY annoying -
>> whenever something hit the disk hard (like a iPhoto import) the
>> *complete* system would freeze up for small periods of time of up to
>> ten seconds generally.
>
> That's either the disk spinning down, or virtual-memory thrashing.
> doesn't spin down. If that doesn't do the trick, increase the amount of
> memory in the machine.
>
> -jcr
>
Hmmm... Slashdot discussion seems to touch on this issue. Perhaps the
cache size of the specific disk is the culprit rather than the speed:
by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday January 20, @06:50AM (#17693580)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Friday December 08, @08:57AM)
Also, in all seriousness, I would love to know why OSX's VM is of
questionable quality.
Well, the simplest way of demonstrating this is to write some code that
runs in a tight loop allocating and freeing memory. Then watch the
system responsiveness die to such an extent that you can't even kill the
process.
As I understand it, the problem comes from the fact that the VM
subsystem is in the Mach layer. This means that every VM operation (e.g.
mapping or unmapping a page) has to go through two layers of
indirection, the second of which is incredibly slow.
I wrote some code recently that mmap'd a large data structure (a few
GBs). Actually, there were a few back-ends, one used mmap, one used
POSIX AIO. On FreeBSD, they were both roughly the same speed. On OS X,
the mmap back end was not just an order of magnitude slower than AIO, it
was an order of magnitude slower than a userspace demand-paging approach
(no pre-fetching). To me, this says something is seriously wrong with
the VM subsystem. I should have had more overhead from all the extra
system calls and extra copies doing the demand paging myself than the
kernel would have had.
by Stalin (13415) on Saturday January 20, @11:00AM (#17694828)
Here is a little bit about how malloc works in OS X:
http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/archives/2006/05/16 /36/ [ridiculousfish.com]
"It just so happens that Mac OS X's default malloc does the "switch" at
15 KB (search for LARGE_THRESHOLD) whereas Lea's allocator does it at
128 KB (search for DEFAULT_MMAP_THRESHOLD). Sekhon's 35 KB allocations
fall right in the middle.
So what this means is that on Mac OS X, every 35 KB allocation is
causing a round trip to the kernel for fresh pages, whereas on Windows
and Linux the allocations are serviced from the application heap,
without talking to the kernel at all. Similarly, every free() causes
another round trip on Mac OS X, but not on Linux or Windows. None of the
defragmentation benefits of using fresh pages come into play because
Sekhon frees these blocks immediately after allocating them, which is,
shall we say, an unusual allocation pattern."
by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday January 20, @11:49AM (#17695210)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Friday December 08, @08:57AM)
The OpenBSD malloc implementation uses even more round trips to the
kernel; it uses mmap for every allocation bigger than one page (4KB on
most platforms these days). It also returns memory to the kernel as soon
as a page is freed (which helps you catch access-after-free bugs). In
spite of this, the OpenBSD implementation is much faster than the OS X
version. Why? Because mmap isn't insanely expensive on OpenBSD, while it
is on OS X.
For a better overview of how memory allocation works, I suggest Amit
Singh's excellent book [amazon.co.uk], which covers the workings of the
XNU kernel in exhaustive detail (I did a technical review for the
publisher, and learned more than I ever wanted to know about XNU and Mach).
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1169349200....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Which means he made an error in his initial purchase.
> > >
> > > Well, the problem is that Apple doesn't seem to offer a HD that has
> > > higher performance. All seems to have similar performance (3 gbit/s).
> > > I don't know about seek time though.
> >
> > IOW, Apple's computers are overpriced and underpowered.
>
> No, they are cheap and overpowered.
If that were true, you wouldn't have had to buy replacement hard
drives, for lots more money, to get performance out of your new Apple
computer, Loopy.
> The harddrives seems underpowered.
The hard drive that Apple forces you to take with an expensive Apple
computer, Loopy.
> > > ZnU seems to suggest that this might have been a bad drive, though.
> >
> > ZnU will offer up any excuse he can invent to save Apple, even if he
> > doesn't believe what he wrote himself!
>
> And you will offer up any excuse to the contrary
You provided the "excuse to the contrary" in this thread, Loopy, not I.
> even though you're
> embarrassingly clueless about computers.
You mistakenly assume I share your shortcomings. You're the guy who
had to pay a lot more money on replacement drives to get an expensive
Apple computer to work properly, not I.
> > > > Should Apple offer SAS drives? Of course. But since they didn't, Sandman
> > > > could have bought the smallest drive Apple offers and then bought
> > > > aftermarket drives.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's what I would have done if I had known.
> >
> > IOW, don't buy an Apple computer unless you're a technical expert?
>
> Well, maybe - you don't have a Mac, do you?
>
> > And even at that you still end up with an HD you don't want
>
> What? Sure I want it. I need the space.
You need your computer to freeze? How does that justify the extra
space?
> You don't seem to understand.
I'll never understand why you're so loopy.
> I've not bought MORE drives than I would if Apple had offered the
> right drives from the start.
Yes you did, Loopy.
> What I bought:
> 1 x 750GB HD
Which you thought would be sufficient, but wasn't, and had to be
replaced.
> What I ended up with:
> 1 x 750GB HD
> 2 x 150GB WD Raptor
Three hard drives, two extra, instead of the one that should have given
the proper performance out of the box, but didn't.
> What I would have bought if Apple would have offered high-performing
> HD's:
> 2 x 250GB WD Raptor
> 1 x 750GB HB
BULLSHIT. You're lying now that you realize how bad your story makes
Apple look.
> Are you getting it yet?
Sure, you just were out to creat a Snit Circus. Knackered it.
> > plus the extra expense of finding and installing your own HD?
>
> I.e. no extra expense.
Is that why your thread title is "This seriously sucks, Apple," instead
of "Yahoo, I got just what I wanted?"
How did you get two more hard drives without adding to the expense of
your computer? Did they just grow inside your Apple computer like
mushrooms?
> And why the fixation with cost? Money is far
> from the issue here.
If you made an honest living you wouldn't be asking that question, nor
would you be claiming that money is no object.
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1169350007.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Thanks for reaffirming that you're clueless about computers in
> > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > and Macs specifically, Nicolas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an expensive
> > > > > > Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
> > > > >
> > > > > How did pinpointing and solving a problem
> > > >
> > > > Which means throwing lots more money at an already expensive Apple
> > > > computer to fix a design flaw that should have never been in a machine
> > > > that costs so much.
> > >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > That admission makes what Nashton wrote about you correct.
>
> Nopes.
You misspelled "yes."
> > > > > make my claim about Nicolas
> > > > > cluelessness less valid, if that is what you mean?
> > > >
> > > > What he wrote is right on the money
> > >
> > > With "right on the money" meaning "totally irrelevant and clueless
> > > bullshit". I.e. just like always with Nashton (and you, by the way).
> >
> > It doesn't mean that at all. It means he's correct in what he wrote
> > about you, and you confirmed it yourself.
>
> In the mind of a self-admitted troll
Not all my posts are trolls, and you're still one of the worst trolls
here, second only to Snit, whether you admit to that or not.
> that is as clueless about
> computers as Nashton, i.e. Edwin himself.
That a hilarious accusation from a guy who spent a lot of money for an
Apple computer, only to get poor performance, and who "fixed" the
problem by spending lots more money!
> > > Thanks for the endorsement with regards to my credibility. Now all we
> > > need is Michael agreeing with you and I'll be just fine :-D
> >
> > It's amazing you can be so oblivious to how much of an idiot you're
> > making out of yourself.
>
> Thanks again.
Again, it's amazing...
Please tell me lead-based paint is outlawed in Sweden... I'd hate to
see more Swedes end up with your mental deficiencies...
Snit
1169421269.6...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com on 1/21/07 4:14 PM:
>> Are you getting it yet?
>
> Sure, you just were out to creat a Snit Circus. Knackered it.
Once again, Edwin, your and Sandman's circuses are not my responsibility.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Michelle Ronn
For the average user, I would agree. For taxing workloads, it can be a
problem. (grid applications, etc)
ZnU
Michelle Ronn <mic...@invalid.net> wrote:
These days, it's probably a few percent of one CPU core, in a system
which, if it's designed to be used for taxing workloads, probably has at
least four.
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > That admission makes what Nashton wrote about you correct.
> >
> > Nopes.
>
> You misspelled "yes."
Nopes.
> > > It doesn't mean that at all. It means he's correct in what he wrote
> > > about you, and you confirmed it yourself.
> >
> > In the mind of a self-admitted troll
>
> Not all my posts are trolls
Of course they are. I've read your posts here for so many years and
I've yet to find one that wasn't a troll. Care to link to some posts
you think *aren't* trolls?
> > that is as clueless about
> > computers as Nashton, i.e. Edwin himself.
>
> That a hilarious accusation from a guy who spent a lot of money for an
> Apple computer, only to get poor performance, and who "fixed" the
> problem by spending lots more money!
As opposed to you, who can only afford budget PC's and doesn't
understand why they are budget systems. :-D
> > > > Thanks for the endorsement with regards to my credibility. Now all we
> > > > need is Michael agreeing with you and I'll be just fine :-D
> > >
> > > It's amazing you can be so oblivious to how much of an idiot you're
> > > making out of yourself.
> >
> > Thanks again.
>
> Again, it's amazing...
Thanks again.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > No, they are cheap and overpowered.
>
> If that were true, you wouldn't have had to buy replacement hard
> drives, for lots more money
Lots of money?? Please, these are hard drives, Edwin. They don't cost
"lots of money".
> > The harddrives seems underpowered.
>
> The hard drive that Apple forces you to take with an expensive Apple
> computer
...seems underpowered. That's what I said.
> > And you will offer up any excuse to the contrary
>
> You provided the "excuse to the contrary" in this thread, Loopy, not I.
No, I didn't.
> > even though you're
> > embarrassingly clueless about computers.
>
> You mistakenly assume I share your shortcomings.
No, I don't.
> > > And even at that you still end up with an HD you don't want
> >
> > What? Sure I want it. I need the space.
>
> You need your computer to freeze?
No, I need the space. I apologize for using English words.
> How does that justify the extra space?
The disks doesn't freeze when the system isn't on them.
> > You don't seem to understand.
> > I've not bought MORE drives than I would if Apple had offered the
> > right drives from the start.
>
> Yes you did, Loopy.
No, I didn't.
> > What I would have bought if Apple would have offered high-performing
> > HD's:
> > 2 x 250GB WD Raptor
> > 1 x 750GB HB
>
> BULLSHIT. You're lying now that you realize how bad your story makes
> Apple look.
Not at all. I need the space. You calling it bullshit just gives it
more credibility, if possible.
> > > plus the extra expense of finding and installing your own HD?
> >
> > I.e. no extra expense.
>
> Is that why your thread title is "This seriously sucks, Apple," instead
> of "Yahoo, I got just what I wanted?"
It seriously sucks that Apple doesn't offer high-performance disks in
their BTO. High-performance disks, however, doesn't give me as much
space, so if they did, I would have bought both.
> How did you get two more hard drives without adding to the expense of
> your computer?
It didn't add to the expense of my computer compared to what it would
have costed if Apple would have offered the option from the beginning.
Look, I've just bought three Xserves, each with over 1TB of disk. Do
you seriously think the cost of these drives is in any way the issue
here?
This was a delayed cost, one that I would have gladly paid from the
beginning had Apple given me the choice.
> > And why the fixation with cost? Money is far
> > from the issue here.
>
> If you made an honest living you wouldn't be asking that question, nor
> would you be claiming that money is no object.
I do make a honest living and the cost of two small hard drives is not
an issue in the budget for my computer purchases.
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <1169271164.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mr. Blonde" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >
> > > Both are important - bad code
> >
> >
> > Hold the phone. An automated syntax checker throwing a few error codes
> > does not always indicate bad code. If Sandman's home page
> > (www.sandman.net) is as poorly designed as you seem to imply it is,
> > surely you could point to some tangible hiccup or puke it causes in any
> > popular web browser. I've looked at it with three of them and all of
> > his pages, links, scripts, etc. seem to work perfectly.
>
> Same here.
>
> > Your claim
> > that his site isn't "professional grade" doesn't seem to hold water.
> >
> > Secondly, yes, visual design is by far the more important skill. An
> > HTML/CSS code whiz with maringal visual design skills will never be as
> > employable as a lesser skilled programmer who can create easy to
> > navigate, well organized, visually appealing websites.
>
> I'd like to see Snit grow a backbone and point to one of his
> professional websites so readers can compare the visual aspects with
> Sandman's site... but he refuses. For a guy that whined how people are
> not defined by the definitions as given by others but are instead
> defined by their actions, Snit's action of refusing to show his own work
> while simultaneously denigrating Sandman's work speaks volumes.
IF snit has a 'professional website', his sites that he does link to, should
show the same professional design that they do, unless you think a professional
web designer only does his professional work when he gets paid to do it.
Pity showing everybody here in csma his 'crap' sites, if indeed that is what he
does.
>
> > Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that your obsession with
> > Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him. Killfilling
> > someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet you
> > piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
> > website's validation status more often than most people check their
> > e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm