On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:06:16PM -0600, Austad, Jay wrote:
> > 600mb drive that could be a problem. (*coughbastardcough* ;) Take it
> > down to 128mb or something and give us some numbers...
> 
> What?  And destroy my manly 512MB ego?  NEVER! 
> 
> I'll consider 256MB, but it'll have to be right after a fight where I whoop
> some ass, or while drinking shots of everclear to maintain a "virtual 512MB
> ego".  :)
> 
Couldn't you trick linux into thinking there is only 128M without taking chips
out?  

Lilo: linux mem=128M (or is it just 128?)

Tim
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Callum Lerwick [mailto:lerwick at tcfreenet.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 12:44 PM
> > To: tclug-list at lists.real-time.com
> > Subject: Re: [TCLUG] REAL Verbatim drive Q (:
> > 
> > 
> > "Austad, Jay" wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Next time, do your test with 2x or more the amount of ram.
> > > 
> > > I would have, but I wanted to test the FS's on the MO 
> > drive.  I have 512MB
> > > of RAM in that box.  I guess I could have cranked the size 
> > up as high as
> > > possible though.
> > 
> > You need to test with a file at least twice the size of RAM 
> > so that high
> > level OS caching doesn't mess with the results. But with 
> > 512mb RAM and a
> > 600mb drive that could be a problem. (*coughbastardcough* ;) Take it
> > down to 128mb or something and give us some numbers...
> > _______________________________________________
> > tclug-list mailing list
> > tclug-list at lists.real-time.com
> > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> tclug-list mailing list
> tclug-list at lists.real-time.com
> https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list