Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!eff!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!lexmark!sophie.noc.lexmark.com!risner From: risner@lexmark.com (James Risner) Subject: Re: Newbie needs setup advice Sender: usenet@lexmark.com Message-ID: <RISNER.94Jan31203005@batman.lexmark.com> In-Reply-To: pritchet@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu's message of 29 Jan 1994 21:47:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 01:30:05 GMT References: <2if74a$jir@dogwood.cs.scarolina.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: batmant.pfv.prtdev.lexmark.com Organization: Lexmark International, Inc. X-Disclaimer: These views are the poster's and not necessarily those of Lexmark Lines: 63 In article <2if74a$jir@dogwood.cs.scarolina.edu> pritchet@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu (Ron Pritchett) writes: > I want to buy a new 340 MB HD & I'd prefer to get SCSI. I'm sure of the > support of the 1520 in Linux & BSD, However. I guess that's the 1st > question then: > 1) Can I go ahead & get a 340 SCSI HD or do I get it in IDE? I am unsure if either support 1520's. I can not comment. > I want to put OS/2,DOS,Linux, & Free/386BSD on the system. I only want 1 > partition visible @ at time. I had planned on using OS/2's boot manager > to accomplish this. > 2) How would I set these partitions up on the new drive? OS/2 can reside SOLELY on the first or second disk. DOS has to be on the first disk. Linux (the last time I installed it) could reside on the second disk. *BSD (the last time I installed it) could NOT reside on the second disk, but it's swap and any other extra partitions could be on disk2. > I'd keep the IDE as HPFS for OS/2, but I was gonna give 150MB to each > Linux & BSD. This would leave me 40MB for DOS. 120 meg = disk 1 40 meg = DOS 75 meg = *BSD /'s 340 meg = disk 2 75 meg = *BSD swap and rest (X, /usr/local, /var, and all) 150 meg = linux system, swap, and all. 40 meg = OS/2 HPFS os/2 (really need like 60 meg) Something like this would do. NetBSD maybe can fit in smaller on disk one. Current has shared libs, and if anyone could get the time to make an interm release ;-) Your stuck with DOS on disk 1. > I need each of these platforms to "talk" to my other machine > running OS/2. I suppose TCP/IP & NFS will do the trick but I need to > keep KPS rates up. LAN Server for OS/2 gives me 235K/S on transfers > to/from the network drive. IBM's NFS (v1.2.1) gave me miserable > perfomance (I'd "eyeball" it at about 1/4th the speen of LAN server). > 3) How good is NFS perfomance for Linux & BSD? The NFS performance is limited by OS/2's tcpip version 1.2.1. version 2.0 is MUCH faster, but still slower than I think it should be for a 32 bit tcp/ip package. NetBSD will almost alyways outperform Linux with NFS. NFS by default uses 8k packets that get fragmented. On Linux, the networking code does not support fragmented packets (major violation) so NFS has to generate 1.5K packets which produces more NFS packets and overhead. 235k/s is a good speed. Many systems (like 26 processor sequent's, 486/33 NetBSD and 486/33 Linux) can not do much over 235k/s through the filesystem. Many systems like DOS can, because they are never reading more than one file at a time. Risner