Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
> > Matthias Andree wrote:
> > You tell me the kernel starts missing drive ACKs even if there are no read
> > or write requests pending? Even then, the drive was never in sleep mode
> > (requires reset), it always was in standby mode (does not require reset). My
> > primary intent is to reduce the noise of the drive, not the power
> > consumption.
> Of course, if the kernel is not writing, it's not missing "operation
> complete" transactions.
> My point is: putting a drive to sleep rather than to standby will not
> help much, it will only delay the spin-up and possibly leave you with a
> slower drive.
But I never wanted it to be in sleep (rather than standby) mode, my original
intent was to bring the system to a state where spin ups are only done when
necessary. Someone said something about noflushd, but I could not find any links
or rpm packages, does anybody have...?
Maybe the off-topic discussion is going to be off-topic of the off-topic... ;o)
> But I never wanted it to be in sleep (rather than standby) mode, my
> original intent was to bring the system to a state where spin ups are
> only done when necessary. Someone said something about noflushd, but I
> could not find any links or rpm packages, does anybody have...?
yup. Freshmeat has:
which links to the home page:
Note you cannot currently build the RPM as user since it has install -o
root somewhere in its Makefile. If you dare, rpm --rebuild as root,
else, fix the Makefile or wait for the update. I have contacted Daniel
Kobras about this (noflushd maintainer) and he agreed to use %defattr in
the RPM .spec in the next release rather than using -o/-g root on
$(INSTALL). Daniel is not an RPM expert, he's using Debian.
Also note I'm Bcc:'ing Daniel. It's not really blind cc: this way, but
this prevents him from being drawn into a possible continued discussion.
I see many people with improperly configured mailers or mailers without
mailing list support that have this tendency (of drawing people in).
Let's please take this off the list. I'm setting Reply-To:, but I'm not
sure if it makes it through the list software.