Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:05:14 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Dru Nelson <dnelson@redwoodsoft.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UDMA in 2.2.8 - patches? Message-ID: <199901050505.VAA00430@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:46:43 PST." <Pine.BSF.3.91.990104202544.1500I-100000@pacman.redwoodsoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > IDE will be OK for these machines, I'm just worried about too many > interupts and not getting good IO performance. > > What is the outlook or possible big ugly monster involved with > getting DMA or some of the EIDE features into 2.2.8 (Intel only > chipsets)? I have no problem with putting something in /sys/pci > to get going on this... *(I'm willing to spend some time on this)* > > I can rationalize adding support for DMA 2.2.8, and testing it thoroughly, > I can't see going to 3.0 just yet. If you're not too worried about CPU on these machines, I'd suggest looking at trying some of the go-faster IDE flags available in 2.2.x before deciding that you need DMA. Try the 32-bit flag (reduce CPU overhead) and the multi-sector transfer count (reduce interrupt count); try 8 or 16 sectors at most. > BTW, hdparm on linux, isn't bad. Can ide be controled dynamically from > command line on 3.0? No; what would you like to tune? -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901050505.VAA00430>