View Single Post
Old 15th June 2011
sharris sharris is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 146
Default Need a day or two:

I won't beable to reply with out checking first, but I will be reading. It don't take must to screw up: see my new setup now in progress, below. Sorry for to many words or out of place words. I'm trying not to rush things. That's how we screw up.

jggimi, that is mind blowing. Beastie you are giving me a better clue to a lot of things but I don't agree with a few details you included. I'll get back with you shortly. Give me a minute. The point of direction must come first so that we all agree. That point has been very clear. jggimi, one thing for sure no matter what they done there is always a base-line to be found. UNIX is a hell of a tool and ASM can kick the c code they use out the picture. Bottom line we have tricks tooo. UNIX and LINUX and Assembler and C are tools by themselves and that is what they use so they can't hide all from view. but if the hard-disk controller got it, were out of luck. They don't rule the controllers. The controller rules them and people like REALTECH is not cashing in i bet.

I better get started.


Quote:
The same question, when researched in terms of MIPS, got the answer "it's implementation-dependent". Well, yeah, obviously...same goes for hard drives.
First of all, Thanks for that. So I plan not to keep up with the Jone's using many brand-names of the same type hardware. I already know that the latest and greatest storage device will be replaced by 2016 or tomorrow by IBM and SONY. I already made up my mine two years ago to dedicate all to AMD-64 because you can write 32 and 64bit programs under one roof. Who cares about INTEL being .0050MHz faster anymore. It's a done deal! I might upgrade a day after 2016.

It took a few days but bashrules post came to light for me after 12 years of wondering. That's tooo much. I bet millions of us thought the same. It should be called "bashrules" to refer to the real difference. I hope the idea is correct. If not, PROVE-IT. It's just like a old-fashion washing machine, it must spin from the center, pushing anything inside OUTWARDS. But since nothing is impossible, implementation could be a factor ... I'm not going to take no chances. I'll sticking with a one brand name of hard-drive for type computer also. So this is now a DONE DEAL too! For what I need space for, a six-pack of Seagate Barracuda 1-Terabyte, one for each AMD machine will do me just fine until QUANTUM arrive.


The speed thing don't show-all. It don't mean PARTITION-1 is dead. Overall it's no faster or slower than the other two partitions when you are actually RUNNING it. Maybe one of those slices is going to feel the impact, or even certain BSD functions. I plotted to get to this for years. And now I just got the answer. So, I'm not going to jump the gun and put cart before the horse.

Just like 8GB RAM with legacy give you only 7.5GB, well a HDD has legacy too and this is the effect of PARTITION-1 but who would think this. It took 12 years to get here, a few more weeks is not going to kill me. The plan was to understand why, than fix-it, trick-it or what ever it takes. But if below turn out to be what a set up should have been for computers in the first place, PARTITION-1 (MBR - OS) COMBO can keep its legacy.


This is my new set-up in the working and why I waste my time:

Partition-1 300 GB - FreeBSD-9.0 |
1)
I'm dishing out my own legacy of from 100GB to now 300GB bigger in size to push Partition-3 beyond the OUTER MIDDLE LIMIT of the entire HDD so there be no excuse not to get the maximum speed out of the any OS and anything else to see if this "OUTER is Faster" thing is true. So far it did prove to be TRUE and this setup is just simply worth the effort and don't hurt anything.
2)
This partition will also be my storage area for zillions of UFS files that I never want to lose. I will also be mounting this partition from afar to study the raw FreeBSD lay-out using PcBSD on P-3. I always wanted to view what's in a FreeBSD directory using a desktop instead of a terminal. Now I can figure better what I can remove to trim-down this system as a server, roving things that it will NEVER use.
3)
I got tons of files I never use or only used once... Who said storage space should be ahead of the drive like we save to everyday, packing it with files that you may never use again but it is living in an area where the most speed for your system can be obtained.


Partition-2 100 GB - PcBSD-9.0 |
1)
This will be my area for testing newer versions of FreeBSD and PcBSD, mainly PcBSD's. FreeBSD has his own on Partition-1. Also it will be here just in case Windows-8 has found a way to not to allow Windows-8 to work on Virtual-Box. I'm sure Dollar Bill knows more people use the FREE Virtual-Box which can allow for may transfer of MS new OS to any non-paying parties. I will be prepared because I always pay-in-full. I need the real-deal.
2)
To swap saved versions that ARCH has dd for me and compressed and saved to files.


Partition-3 300 GB - PcBSD-8.2 |
1)
For mastering PcBSD and to learn more about FreeBSD on P1.
1)
To run Win-95 - Window-8 and the rest if I want to in Virtual-Box.
1)
It will be the Ultimate Desktop, living at the Ultimate location. PERIOD
In a few days I will know which way is up for SURE. But I hope
to know the truth before than or some darn good guest about direction.
Until than, bashrules, RULE!


Extended-4 250 GB - with bootable partitions
1)
To run Arch-command-line version to maintain the entire system and to keep all other operating systems honest.
2)
To run Fedora-Gnome-3 giving Gnome-3 a chance to live on a real partition in my world. I don't like this kind of change but might as well get use to it.
3)
A Partitions for 14 years worth of Windows Fat-32 files that will be used by all Windows from Virtual-Box on P-3
4)
A partitions for ARCH to store P1, P2 and P3 partitions compressed to files.


FREESPACE: 1GB
Something to attach a 2, 3 or 4 Terabyte drive if I ever need more space which I will not because it would only break the bashrules OUTER-LIMITS set for this HDD.


Who could ask for more?

I should be back on the ball by this coming Monday.

I'll post the new numbers for every partition, both ways (save and destroy). After that I'll be ready to do the rocket thing inside each partition dealing with each of it slices.
.............
..............
...............
Give me a few days rocket357 so I can finish this set up.

Quote:
I too have always understood the inner portion
nilsgecko What do you mean? Do you thing the HDD start reading at the most inner part of the HDD and also build partition up from that point. Or do you think at it has to go to the most-outer position of the HDD and pick-up it's very first orders... and from there do you think partitions are build downward from that point. Let me know if you don't understand the question so I can re-word it. Maybe use one of those charts to show me what you think. I think only a line or two may need to be change to show and tell your way.

Better yet this is a question for all of you guys...
...

Last edited by sharris; 15th June 2011 at 05:46 PM.
Reply With Quote