holtt@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Tim Holt) (03/01/91)
I'm setting up an Everex 386/25 Step system to run Interactive's UNIX, and am wondering how acceptable it would be to use 2 80 MB HDs instead of one large one (like a 160). I suppose there could be some degredation, but I can also imagine some improvement in performance, especially if the swap space was on one HD and work space on the other. My reason is that the computer will be on board a ship and the other marine technicians here at OSU have had bad luck with big (160+) HDs, more frequent failures, so are very inclined towards multiple small (80) drives. Is this reasonable? 2 80s instead of 1 160? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Holt - Marine Technician holtt@jacobs.cs.orst.edu Oregon State University (503)737-4447 College of Oceanograpy Oc. Admin. 104 Corvallis, OR 97331-5503 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Holt - Marine Technician holtt@jacobs.cs.orst.edu Oregon State University (503)737-4447 College of Oceanograpy
kittlitz@granite.cr.bull.com (Edward N. Kittlitz) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb28.171847.2803@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> holtt@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Tim Holt) writes: >I'm setting up an Everex 386/25 Step system to run Interactive's UNIX, and >am wondering how acceptable it would be to use 2 80 MB HDs instead of one >large one (like a 160). ISC installation (and perhaps some other things) assume that if you have a "usr" filesystem, it will be on the boot disk with the "root" filesystem. Thus, if you can get all the software you plan to use (and which insists on being installed on the root FS or under /usr) into 80MB, you will be OK. You can use the second disk for a "usr2" (or multiple "usrN") filesystems. It is also possible to make a "tmp" filesystem on the second disk and put /tmp there. I believe that a lot of purchased software (e.g. oracle, perhaps some compilers) expects to be in places like /bin (root filesystem) or under /usr/bin /usr/lib ... It is supposed to be possible to put additional swap space on the second drive, but I have never done it. I found several bugs in the ISC2.2 addharddisk stuff, such as inability to cope with putting /tmp on the second disk without fiddling the script. -- ----- E. N. Kittlitz kittlitz@world.std.com / kittlitz@granite.cr.bull.com Contracting at Bull, but not alleging any representation of their philosophy.
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (03/03/91)
kittlitz@granite.cr.bull.com (Edward N. Kittlitz) writes: >I believe that a lot of purchased software (e.g. oracle, perhaps >some compilers) expects to be in places like /bin (root filesystem) >or under /usr/bin /usr/lib ... /usr is not required to be on the first drive. The only pieces that *MUST* be on the first drive are 1) root partition (primarily /, /bin and /etc) and 2) primary swap space -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc. uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com (Jim Deitch) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar03.025118.21345@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >kittlitz@granite.cr.bull.com (Edward N. Kittlitz) writes: > >>I believe that a lot of purchased software (e.g. oracle, perhaps >>some compilers) expects to be in places like /bin (root filesystem) >>or under /usr/bin /usr/lib ... > >/usr is not required to be on the first drive. The only pieces >that *MUST* be on the first drive are 1) root partition (primarily /, /bin >and /etc) and 2) primary swap space > >-- >Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc. >uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 > Sterling, VA 22170 How about /dev? Doesn't it need this to open any subsequent devices? Jim -- ARPANET: jadpc!jdeitch@nosc.mil INTERNET: jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com UUCP: nosc!jadpc!jdeitch
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Feb28.171847.2803@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> holtt@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Tim Holt) writes: | I'm setting up an Everex 386/25 Step system to run Interactive's UNIX, and | am wondering how acceptable it would be to use 2 80 MB HDs instead of one | large one (like a 160). I suppose there could be some degredation, but | I can also imagine some improvement in performance, especially if the | swap space was on one HD and work space on the other. The first answer is yes, you can do two 80's and performance should be somewhat better than one 160 (assuming similar seek times). However, running on a ship is going to present lots of motion (roll) and vibration which are hard on a disk. Under those conditions an IDE drive (or other 3-1/2 inch) may be better in terms of reliability. I know the Navy has some data on this, and they recently got a bunch of portables for on ship use on at least a few ships. Having seen them used in running 4x4's during an off road rally, I guess they are as good as you will get. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
kittlitz@granite.cr.bull.com (Edward N. Kittlitz) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar03.025118.21345@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >/usr is not required to be on the first drive. I know that it is possible to get "usr" onto the second drive, but it is hardly facilitated by the ISC installation scripts. I have explicitly asked ISC support people about this, and have been told that usr on a second drive is not supported. If you opt for a combined root/usr filesystem on the first drive, you are not (unless I am VERY much mistaken) offered the subsequent oppurtunity to make a "usr" filesystem on a later drive. You are offered "usrN" filesystems and swap space. I have managed to get "usr" onto a second drive, but only by dint of adding the second drive with filesystem names like usr2 and then subsequent editing of /etc/partitions, fstab, etc., and a find/cpio to move the whole /usr directory to the new filesystem. It does work, but I believe it is not for the naive. -- ----- E. N. Kittlitz kittlitz@world.std.com / kittlitz@granite.cr.bull.com Contracting at Bull, but not alleging any representation of their philosophy.
pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Feb28.171847.2803@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> holtt@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Tim Holt) writes: >I'm setting up an Everex 386/25 Step system to run Interactive's UNIX, and >am wondering how acceptable it would be to use 2 80 MB HDs instead of one >large one (like a 160). When I talked to Jeff at Esix a bit ago, he told me that Rev 4 will max out and possibly overflow a 80megger. You may want to stick with the 160Meg drive if you want to upgrade. Tim -- pozar@lns.com Fido: 1:125/555 PaBell: 415-788-3904 USNail: KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108