Printable View
Due to copyright issues, I think that you have to download and to install the drivers from Nvidia. This might be set-up for you already. In 3.8.1, can you still go to K -> Knoppix -> Utilities -> Install software -> nvidia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleu
Anybody else not having sound using knoppix 3.8.1 on a IBM T41 laptop (using default boot) ? Any fix ?
Command df -h on Cebit Version 3.8 shows UnionFS has 9GB capability.
The same command on Version 3.8.1 shows 4.5GB capability.
Can i update knoppix 3.7 to 3.8? or is 3.8 a new install ?
I find it rather odd that 3.4.1 boots my desktop with support for an MS USB wireless mouse but 3.8.1 does not.
>> In 3.8.1, can you still go to K -> Knoppix -> Utilities -> Install software -> nvidia?
No such an option in Knoppix 3.8.1
ASUS P4S8X, 2400 MHz P4, 512 MB DDR, WD800 80GB IDE
After booting 3.8.1 for the first time today, I noticed that mkntfs was taking forever to zero-out a partition. I confirmed with dd that I am getting only about 2 MB /second written to the ide drive (WD800). Same result with or without drive write cache. Initial writes go about 4 MB/sec, then degrade over one or two minutes down to a steady 2 MB/sec.
In 3.7 the same operation writes a steady 36 MB/second with no degradation over time.
The command to test this is (after using qtparted to create a 25 GB ntfs partition)
dd if=/dev/zero ibs=65536k obs=8032k of=/dev/hda7
(use "kill -USR1 $dd_PID" in another shell to monitor the bytes/sec)
Have I overlooked something obvious?
Thanks and Best Regards,
Jeff Buckles
Aloha, OR, USA
Curious why BT is so slow. I don't really understand the process. I do try to always "do the right thing" and use it, because I believe in the principle of sharing internet load.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Kuhman
Like last night, I downloaded it from home overnight with BT, and left my machine on long after the download was done (and was happy to see that several hundred megabytes had been uploaded).
But the truth is, I could have gotten it two or three times as fast downloading direct from a mirror, because the connection speed to one or more mirrors was as fast as my bandwidth allowed, whereas BT never really seems to get above 1/3rd of my max speed. And that's 1/10th of my speed (just clocked) from work.
Is this because many of the uploading "seeders" or whatever are over modem? Are users prioritized by bandwith at all?
THinking about it, how would someone with a T1 connection be prioritized over someone with a modem? At first it seems like the answer is "screw priority: everyone is equal!" But then the guy with the T1 would have no real incentive to use it, since the proportionate hit in speed would be greater than the 56k user. But if that guy did use BT with a lesser "penalty", that guy could also have been uploading vastly more, benefitting all the guys with 56k connections.
What client and version are you using? I just looked and there are over 300 completed seeders on at the moment, and of course everyone who is uploading should be sharing too. I can see that many of the downloaders are averaging over 100KB/S, which is in my mind pretty good. I got my copy about a week ago and only averaged under 20KB/S, but I could see at the time that there were others downloading at the same time getting better speeds and I certainly wasn't using anywhere near my download capacity. I think I've determined in my case that I was flooding my upload channel so bad that my requests to the other servers that I was downloading from were backing up pretty bad. I was actually uploading a lot faster than I was downloading. I've since upgraded to BitTorrent 4.0.1. It has a nice hand upload speed control on it and it seem to do a better job for me. I've mostly just been using it to share the Knoppix files this week, but a few quick tests of downloading speed went pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jansi
With BT you don't get the file from just one other user, and you don't feed just one other user. So even if you are on a high speed connection, BT may ask someone on dial-up to provide you with a small slice of the file. He has the available bandwidth while he is downloading to upload too, and you gain just a little by getting that extra slice from him. If you get enough slices that way it adds up. The only downside that might be there is that towards the end of a long download of a large file like Knoppix, you might have your last slice trickeling in from a dial-up user after all of the high speed slices have completed. But this should only cost you and extra minute or two and is well worth it for the real benefits we get from the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jansi