Does anyone know where I can get a 5.25 inch floppy drive? My wife has some floppies that have her genealogy on them and no way to read them...thanks...Jerry On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM, <tclug-list-request at mn-linux.org> wrote: > Send tclug-list mailing list submissions to > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tclug-list-request at mn-linux.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tclug-list-owner at mn-linux.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tclug-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: solid state drives (Jeremy) > 2. Re: solid state drives (Mike Miller) > 3. nfs error (Mark Mitchell) > 4. Re: nfs error (Mark Mitchell) > 5. Re: solid state drives (Dave Sherohman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:04:00 -0500 > From: Jeremy <tclug at lizakowski.com> > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] solid state drives > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Message-ID: <200807251704.00615.tclug at lizakowski.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Shopping Cart to Mailbox: > 4200rpm: $49.99 > SSD: $999.99 > > > On Friday 25 July 2008 4:05:35 pm David Alanis wrote: >> Quoting Mike Miller <mbmiller at taxa.epi.umn.edu>: >> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, David Alanis wrote: >> >> This months Linux Journal has a good article on solid state drives and >> >> they talk about their comparison against a 4200 RPM 1.8 drive. >> > >> > Are 4200 RPM 1.8" drives used in notebooks? >> > >> > So what did they find? Was SSD faster than HDD? >> >> The tests were done on a Laptop - Fujitsu P1610 Intel 1.2GHz ULV Core >> Solo with 1GB RAM. Also, pointed out that it will vary depending on >> the OS and packages of course. You will have to buy the mag to read >> the complete article :) >> >> I have to get going here but the results are as follows: >> >> Grub to login >> 4200rpm: 50sec. >> SSD: 34sec. >> >> Login to Desktop >> 4200rpm: 59sec. >> SSD: 23sec. >> >> Untar Kernel 2.6.22 >> 4200rpm: 66sec. >> SSD: 53sec. >> >> Suspend to Disk >> 4200rpm: 75sec. >> SSD: 50sec. >> >> Grub to Resume >> 4200rpm: 83sec. >> SSD: 38sec. >> >> David >> >> >> Does anyone own or have used a SSD? >> > >> > Not me. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >> > tclug-list at mn-linux.org >> > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:42:19 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mike Miller <mbmiller at taxa.epi.umn.edu> > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] solid state drives > To: TCLUG List <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> > Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0807251836310.27155 at taxa.epi.umn.edu> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Jeremy wrote: > >> Shopping Cart to Mailbox: >> 4200rpm: $49.99 >> SSD: $999.99 > > > No doubt that price will be divebombing fast (I think they are already > mostly in the $700-$800 range at 64GB). > > Someone on another list answered this for me: > > >>> On NewEgg.com, most of the 64GB SSD drives are in the $700-$800 range, >>> but there's this one at $285: >>> >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208432 >>> >>> So what's wrong with that one?! ;-) >>> >>> Mike >> >> It's using slower and shorter-lived multi-level cell (MLC) Flash rather >> than the much more expensive, faster, and longer-lived single-level cell >> (SLC) Flash. The "-M" at the end of the product name gives it away: >> >> http://www.transcendusa.com/Products/ModDetail.asp?ModNo=177 >> >> Transcend's own data lists the MLC version as 116 MB/sec read, 43 MB/sec >> write vs. 119 MB/sec read, 64 MB/sec writes for the SLC Flash. They do >> not list the estimated life span in I/O operations for the two types but >> they do note that the SLC version is recommended for OS installation: >> >> http://www.transcendusa.com/Products/ModDetail.asp?ModNo=177&SpNo=3&LangNo=0 > > > Can't wait for those 64GB SLC SSD drives to drop to about $100. That will > be nice. My guess is that it will take 2 years. > > Mike > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:12:45 -0500 > From: "Mark Mitchell" <mark.russel.mitchell at gmail.com> > Subject: [tclug-list] nfs error > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Message-ID: > <4bca4b7c0807251912h1e9dad51rdc5299d56247cee3 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Debian Etch, brand new install. All I've done to it since out of the > box state is change the IP to static, and add a drive. > > Every time I start '/etc/init.d/nfs-kernel-server', I get 'nfsd: > peername failed (err 107)'. > > Googling this error doesn't bring up anything useful. > > Any ideas? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:31:41 -0500 > From: "Mark Mitchell" <mark.russel.mitchell at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] nfs error > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Message-ID: > <4bca4b7c0807252031qbd3f5d9v219c0c49d74498c4 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Mark Mitchell > <mark.russel.mitchell at gmail.com> wrote: >> Debian Etch, brand new install. All I've done to it since out of the >> box state is change the IP to static, and add a drive. >> >> Every time I start '/etc/init.d/nfs-kernel-server', I get 'nfsd: >> peername failed (err 107)'. >> >> Googling this error doesn't bring up anything useful. >> > With some help from #debian on irc.debian.org, I figured it out. > > The problem was that I had a client on the network still trying to > connect to the original share on this machine. Once I re-setup the > shares on the server, and remounted the client's shares, everything > was fine. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:47:00 -0500 > From: Dave Sherohman <dave at sherohman.org> > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] solid state drives > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Message-ID: <20080726144700.GE21754 at sherohman.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 04:53:34PM -0500, Mike Miller wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, David Alanis wrote: >> > Grub to login >> > 4200rpm: 50sec. >> > SSD: 34sec. >> > >> > Login to Desktop >> > 4200rpm: 59sec. >> > SSD: 23sec. >> > >> > Untar Kernel 2.6.22 >> > 4200rpm: 66sec. >> > SSD: 53sec. >> > >> > Suspend to Disk >> > 4200rpm: 75sec. >> > SSD: 50sec. >> > >> > Grub to Resume >> > 4200rpm: 83sec. >> > SSD: 38sec. >> >> >> Thanks for sharing that, David. That is interesting information. >> Apparently, the 4200 RPM HDD took 50% or more time than the SSD on every >> job but only 25% longer on "untar kernel," for some reason. > > Is the untarring a straight read of an uncompressed tarball or was the > test run on a compressed kernel? I assume the latter (that seems to be > the norm), in which case the "untar kernel" test would have a > significantly higher proportion of CPU-dependent work than the other > tests, reducing the relative impact of data transfer speeds. > > -- > News aggregation meets world domination. Can you see the fnews? > http://seethefnews.com/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > End of tclug-list Digest, Vol 43, Issue 28 > ****************************************** > -- Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies