Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2242 > unrolled thread

IDE or AHCI ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

Contents

  IDE or AHCI ? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2012-01-03 12:30 -0600
    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-03 21:05 +0000
      Re: IDE or AHCI ? "arno fucker" <af@arnofucker.com> - 2012-01-04 12:41 +1100
    Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 12:58 +1100
    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-04 00:07 -0500
      Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-01-04 08:53 +0100
        Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 20:32 +1100
          Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-01-04 14:44 +0100
            Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 07:37 +1100
              Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-04 22:56 +0100
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 09:48 +1100
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Ed Light <nobody@nobody.there> - 2012-01-04 21:40 -0800
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-05 05:37 +0000
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 17:37 +1100
        Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-04 09:29 -0500
          Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-01-04 16:04 +0100
            Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-04 19:19 +0000
              Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-04 23:14 +0100
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-05 08:47 +0000
            Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 07:51 +1100
          Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-04 19:16 +0000
          Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 07:41 +1100
            Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-05 14:44 -0500
              Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 17:35 +1100
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-01-07 00:05 +1100
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-06 20:04 +0000
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-06 21:13 +0000
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net> - 2012-01-06 20:42 -0600
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-07 13:48 +0100
                        Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-07 14:09 +0000
                        Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-07 14:36 +0000
                          Re: IDE or AHCI ? Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-01-08 02:11 +1100
                            Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-09 12:06 +0000
                              Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-09 16:27 +0000
                                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-09 17:36 +0000
                                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-09 17:41 +0000
                                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-01-09 19:07 +0000
                                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-09 20:12 +0100
                                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-09 21:00 +0000
                              Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 11:31 -0500
                          Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-07 17:10 +0100
                            Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-10 14:18 +0000
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 11:23 -0500
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-09 16:30 +0000
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-09 20:16 +0100
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net> - 2012-01-09 17:13 -0600
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 08:11 +1100
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-01-08 01:23 +1100
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-08 06:43 +1100
                        Re: IDE or AHCI ? JW <none@dev.null> - 2012-01-09 05:23 -0500
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 10:24 -0500
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 09:34 +1100
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 20:04 -0500
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 15:33 +1100
              Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-06 09:48 +0000
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 11:35 -0500
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-09 20:23 +0100
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-10 11:31 +0000
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-20 06:54 -0500
        Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-04 19:14 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#2263

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 04/01/2012 2:53 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has always
>> had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise head movement. It
>> will sometimes make things worse, such as when the OS wants to enforce a
>> particular order (for transactions to filesystem journals, for example).
>> And NCQ doesn't help windows much either - after all, it only applies
>> when you do more than one thing at a time.

> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking. I monitor the 
> disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly, and very often when 
> the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 
> process is actively waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged 
> near 100%. Nothing that can be done about it till SSD's are more affordable.

>        Yousuf Khan

Interessting.

Arno

-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2266

Yousuf Khan wrote
> David Brown wrote

>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has always
>> had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise head
>> movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as when the OS
>> wants to enforce a particular order (for transactions to filesystem
>> journals, for example). And NCQ doesn't help windows much either -
>> after all, it only applies when you do more than one thing at a time.

> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.

The benchmarks clearly show that it does.

Not very dramatically tho.

> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly, and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue 
> Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 
> 100%.

Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

> Nothing that can be done about it till SSD's are more affordable.

Wrong. NCQ does help in that situaition, albeit not very dramatically. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2278

On 1/4/2012 3:41 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote
>> David Brown wrote
>
>>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has always
>>> had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise head
>>> movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as when the OS
>>> wants to enforce a particular order (for transactions to filesystem
>>> journals, for example). And NCQ doesn't help windows much either -
>>> after all, it only applies when you do more than one thing at a time.
>
>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.
>
> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.
>
> Not very dramatically tho.

Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.

>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly, and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue
>> Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near
>> 100%.
>
> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't 
mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking about 
5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue 
at any given time. This normally happens during boot-up time, but it 
doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere 
at any time. Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same 
time, and you got major delays.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2284

Yousuf Khan wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>> David Brown wrote

>>>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has
>>>> always had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise head
>>>> movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as when the OS
>>>> wants to enforce a particular order (for transactions to filesystem
>>>> journals, for example). And NCQ doesn't help windows much either -
>>>> after all, it only applies when you do more than one thing at a time.

>>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.

>> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.

>> Not very dramatically tho.

> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.

You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.

>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively 
>>> waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.

>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, 
> but I'm talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue at any given time.

I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.

> This normally happens during boot-up time,

Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can,
any reboot involved should happen when you arent using the system.

> but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere at any time.

Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.

> Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same time, and you got major delays.

Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2290

On 6/01/2012 5:35 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>> David Brown wrote
>
>>>>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has
>>>>> always had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise head
>>>>> movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as when the OS
>>>>> wants to enforce a particular order (for transactions to filesystem
>>>>> journals, for example). And NCQ doesn't help windows much either -
>>>>> after all, it only applies when you do more than one thing at a time.
>
>>>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.
>
>>> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.
>
>>> Not very dramatically tho.
>
>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.
>
> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.
>
>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively
>>>> waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.
>
>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>
>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10,
>> but I'm talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue at any given time.
>
> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.
>
>> This normally happens during boot-up time,
>
> Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
> boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
> you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
> makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
> months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

I turn my computers off when not in use. No point using electricity when 
I'm not using the computer. I turn the power off at the UPS but not at 
the wall socket. Waiting for a bootup is no great pain. I walk past my 
computer, hit a few buttons, do a few other things and by the time I 
have finished that, the beast is up and ready.

I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown. Friends 
of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up 
in knots. Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even 
suspending or hibernating.
>
> Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can,
> any reboot involved should happen when you arent using the system.
>
>> but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere at any time.
>
> Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.
>
>> Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same time, and you got major delays.
>
> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

You don't know what you're talking about. I have modern fast seeking 
drives in all my computers bar my Powermac and they ALL bog down when 
accessed by multiple programs at the same time. I suggest you do a few 
simple experiments to prove this to yourself. Do you reckon the seek 
limitations of mechanical hard drives might be the reason SSDs are so 
popular in applications where speed is paramount?


-- 

Krypsis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2297

Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On 6/01/2012 5:35 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>>> David Brown wrote
>>
>>>>>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has
>>>>>> always had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise head
>>>>>> movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as when the OS
>>>>>> wants to enforce a particular order (for transactions to filesystem
>>>>>> journals, for example). And NCQ doesn't help windows much either -
>>>>>> after all, it only applies when you do more than one thing at a time.
>>
>>>>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.
>>
>>>> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.
>>
>>>> Not very dramatically tho.
>>
>>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.
>>
>> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.
>>
>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively
>>>>> waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.
>>
>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>>
>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10,
>>> but I'm talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue at any given time.
>>
>> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.
>>
>>> This normally happens during boot-up time,
>>
>> Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
>> boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
>> you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
>> makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
>> months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

> I turn my computers off when not in use. No point using electricity when 
> I'm not using the computer. I turn the power off at the UPS but not at 
> the wall socket. Waiting for a bootup is no great pain. I walk past my 
> computer, hit a few buttons, do a few other things and by the time I 
> have finished that, the beast is up and ready.

> I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown. Friends 
> of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up 
> in knots. Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even 
> suspending or hibernating.

Windows was never intended as a server OS. It still shows. 
There is a lot that cannot be done on Windows without a shurdown.
Machines get slower and slower with uptime. I know a few people
that administrate Windows servers, and they usually do scheduled
reboots every 30 days or so.

Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
400 days, then I replaced the kernel. No issues at that 
time despite constant i/o and network load during the day.
This experience is fairly typical. Still, for my desktop system
I shut down Linux as well. Hibernating is at the very least a 
security risk and basically unneccessary. I do the same as you,
1-2 minutes are not hard to pass.

>> Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can,
>> any reboot involved should happen when you arent using the system.
>>
>>> but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere at any time.
>>
>> Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.
>>
>>> Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same time, and you got major delays.
>>
>> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
>> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

> You don't know what you're talking about. 

As usual for him. Even the fastest stinning disks can
be brought to their knees with a few processes that are I/O 
intensive. (That means aggregated delivered I/O bandwidth is far
lower than the maximum.) For SSDs the situation is different
at least for large accesses. For small accesses you can run
into the same problem.

> I have modern fast seeking 
> drives in all my computers bar my Powermac and they ALL bog down when 
> accessed by multiple programs at the same time. I suggest you do a few 
> simple experiments to prove this to yourself. Do you reckon the seek 
> limitations of mechanical hard drives might be the reason SSDs are so 
> popular in applications where speed is paramount?

Or even RAM-disks in some applications. At least before SSDs became
cheap. 

Don't worry about Rod, he is not using any kind of
understanding to post his opinions, he uses the parrot
model with some obscure selction function. Most of us
have him filtered out.

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2303

En el artículo <9mp2dlFb30U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno <me@privacy.net>
escribió:

>Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
>400 days

http://www.jasper.org.uk/uptime.jpg

Now that's a *proper* OS :-)

-- 
 (\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2306

On 01/06/2012 03:13 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el artículo<9mp2dlFb30U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno<me@privacy.net>
> escribió:
>
>> Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
>> 400 days
>
> http://www.jasper.org.uk/uptime.jpg
>
> Now that's a *proper* OS :-)
>
Indeed.

FWIW, I've been using Solaris for some time to serve files, and have 
routinely had uptimes of about a year before something has come along to 
force a shutdown -- usually me wanting to change the hardware 
configuration or location.  I've just switched to OpenIndiana -- hope I 
do as well with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2312

On 06/01/12 22:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el artículo<9mp2dlFb30U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno<me@privacy.net>
> escribió:
>
>> Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
>> 400 days
>
> http://www.jasper.org.uk/uptime.jpg
>
> Now that's a *proper* OS :-)
>

The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware 
machines running for over six years:

<http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/netware/2005/1128nw2.html>

I read an article once about an IBM mainframe that had been running 
non-stop for a couple of decades - but the only original part was the 
frame.  Everything else had been hot-swapped over time, usually for 
preventive maintenance rather than as a result of failure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2313

David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 06/01/12 22:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>> En el art?culo<9mp2dlFb30U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno<me@privacy.net>
>> escribi?:
>>
>>> Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
>>> 400 days
>>
>> http://www.jasper.org.uk/uptime.jpg
>>
>> Now that's a *proper* OS :-)
>>

> The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware 
> machines running for over six years:

> <http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/netware/2005/1128nw2.html>

> I read an article once about an IBM mainframe that had been running 
> non-stop for a couple of decades - but the only original part was the 
> frame.  Everything else had been hot-swapped over time, usually for 
> preventive maintenance rather than as a result of failure.

Indeed. Linux already is in the lower-quality sector. Still
good for many tasks, but not high-reliability or high-uptime.
Just fullfilling the minimal sane requirements for a server OS.

That shows that Windows is properly placed in the "toy" class here.
It never ceases to amaze me that people are willing to settle for
that.

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2319

En el artículo <SYCdnWGYj8SoopXSnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown
<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> escribió:

>The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware 
>machines running for over six years:

Not difficult for them to achieve, not being internet-facing and thus
not having to have security updates applied every ten minutes.

I installed several Netware networks years ago running on Token Ring.
This was in the days when Ethernet was still installed using thin coax
cable.

I remember a story - possibly urban myth - about a company which called
out a consultancy to fix a Netware server which had gone down.  The firm
had ground to a halt as no-one could get any work done. The problem was
no-one knew where it was; it had been up and running so long. They
eventually found it behind a walled-in space which had been created
during building modifications.

-- 
 (\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2320

On 8/01/2012 1:36 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el artículo<SYCdnWGYj8SoopXSnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown
> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  escribió:
>
>> The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware
>> machines running for over six years:
>
> Not difficult for them to achieve, not being internet-facing and thus
> not having to have security updates applied every ten minutes.
>
> I installed several Netware networks years ago running on Token Ring.
> This was in the days when Ethernet was still installed using thin coax
> cable.

I remember IBM token ring networks back in the 80s... Yech!!
>
> I remember a story - possibly urban myth - about a company which called
> out a consultancy to fix a Netware server which had gone down.  The firm
> had ground to a halt as no-one could get any work done. The problem was
> no-one knew where it was; it had been up and running so long. They
> eventually found it behind a walled-in space which had been created
> during building modifications.
>


-- 

Krypsis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2342

In article <je9nbr$drn$1@dont-email.me>, Krypsis
<krypsis@optusnet.com.au> writes

>I remember IBM token ring networks back in the 80s... Yech!!

To be fair, it was a very well thought-out network protocol which beat
the pants off CSMA/CD Ethernet.

The main problem was the prohibitive cost of network cards (often
containing a more powerful processor than the host system) and the MAUs
(concentrators).  They suffered from IBM's propensity to over-engineer
everything.

Even though IBM developed it to run at 16Mbps (originally 4) and to use
two tokens instead of one, the advent of cheap Ethernet cards and cheap
UTP cabling eventually killed off Token Ring.

-- 
(\__/)   
(='.'=) 
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2345

Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <je9nbr$drn$1@dont-email.me>, Krypsis
> <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> writes

>>I remember IBM token ring networks back in the 80s... Yech!!

> To be fair, it was a very well thought-out network protocol which beat
> the pants off CSMA/CD Ethernet.

> The main problem was the prohibitive cost of network cards (often
> containing a more powerful processor than the host system) and the MAUs
> (concentrators).  They suffered from IBM's propensity to over-engineer
> everything.

> Even though IBM developed it to run at 16Mbps (originally 4) and to use
> two tokens instead of one, the advent of cheap Ethernet cards and cheap
> UTP cabling eventually killed off Token Ring.

There was another problem: Inadequate resilience to card failure.
ATM was killed by the same thing plus extreme vendor egoism (fully
compatible only within one vendor).

The main driving point for Ethernet is that it is simple and there 
is a good standard that does not leave critical grey areas.

Or in one sentence: Ethernet is infrastrucutre, while Token-Ring
was one vendores ego-trip.
 
Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2349

En el artículo <9n0ir6Fc39U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno <me@privacy.net>
escribió:

> Ethernet is infrastrucutre,

The original Ethernet wasn't intended to be infrastructural, it was
invented to link together workstations at Xerox PARC.  It ran at
2.94Mbps, and was developed further by DIX (Digital, Intel and Xerox)
and its speed increased to 10Mbps.

-- 
 (\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2350

En el artículo <9n0ir6Fc39U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno <me@privacy.net>
escribió:

> Token-Ring
>was one vendores ego-trip.

Bit unfair, I think.  Ego-trips generally don't become IEEE standards.

-- 
 (\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2351

In article <fU90B8AWbyCPFwVP@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>En el artículo <9n0ir6Fc39U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno <me@privacy.net>
>escribió:
>
>> Token-Ring
>>was one vendores ego-trip.
>
>Bit unfair, I think.  Ego-trips generally don't become IEEE standards.
>
Tell that to Apple !!!!


"flame suit on"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2352

On 09/01/12 20:07, GMAN wrote:
> In article<fU90B8AWbyCPFwVP@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson<mike@jasper.org.uk>  wrote:
>> En el artículo<9n0ir6Fc39U1@mid.individual.net>, Arno<me@privacy.net>
>> escribió:
>>
>>> Token-Ring
>>> was one vendores ego-trip.
>>
>> Bit unfair, I think.  Ego-trips generally don't become IEEE standards.
>>
> Tell that to Apple !!!!
>
>

Or Micro "OOXML" soft.

> "flame suit on"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2355

En el artículo <7VGOq.198616$xz3.163907@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com>,
GMAN <Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net> escribió:

>Tell that to Apple !!!!

Touché :-)

-- 
 (\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2347

On 09/01/2012 7:06 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> In article<je9nbr$drn$1@dont-email.me>, Krypsis
> <krypsis@optusnet.com.au>  writes
>
>> I remember IBM token ring networks back in the 80s... Yech!!
>
> To be fair, it was a very well thought-out network protocol which beat
> the pants off CSMA/CD Ethernet.
>
> The main problem was the prohibitive cost of network cards (often
> containing a more powerful processor than the host system) and the MAUs
> (concentrators).  They suffered from IBM's propensity to over-engineer
> everything.
>
> Even though IBM developed it to run at 16Mbps (originally 4) and to use
> two tokens instead of one, the advent of cheap Ethernet cards and cheap
> UTP cabling eventually killed off Token Ring.

Not to mention the fact that Ethernet is hardly the underachieving 
shared bus architecture it once was, switching hubs have now transformed 
it into a full-blown star architecture. Even everyday home routers are 
Ethernet switches now.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

csiph-web