Ingo Molnar wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>We used to do this in the 7.2 timeframe, but the time difference on an
>install was negligible.
it's not the HD that is keeping up things - it's the non-overlap of CDROM
and HD IO that hurts. We use the CDROM, then we use the HD to install the
rpm, then we use the CDROM again, etc. - instead of using them in parallel
and cutting latencies into half.
I wouldn't expect much gain if the CD is the slave device and the HD the
Master on 1 IDE channel. I know lot's of systems setup like that. My
normal system has to HDs with software raid, both masters, So the CD has
to be a slave device. Both HDs are masters to improve their performance,
it sucked when they were on the same channel.
Fetching the next RPM while installing one would likely help for network
installs. For local installs, HD or CD, should probably check the
devices to see if they are a master/slave pair (hda+hdb, hdc+hdd, etc).
Not sure how to find the underlying devices for a raid device though.
-Thomas