[ale] mounted filesystem becomes read-only

[Geoffrey]

Lightner, Jeff wrote:
> I never worked on the 300 - I read about 8 MB in the manual (light
> reading one night while waiting for the backup to finish).  I'm thinking
> that was what it said it could hold but its possible it said it was what
> it had by default.   
> 
> It was underpowered for the app running on it so we actually replaced it
> with a 3B2-600 shortly afterward (and had to sign an NDA with AT&T as it
> wasn't yet in general release - they gave it to us because we were the
> first location of hundreds and if they hadn't it would have killed the
> whole deal).

I cut my UNIX teeth on the 3B series.  3B5s, 3B20s, later mostly 
3b-400s, 3b-600, 3b-800.  Still have a couple of 3b-300s in storage. 
Now that would make for an ALE meeting.  See if those would still boot. ;)

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
> Geoffrey
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:02 PM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
> Subject: Re: [ale] mounted filesystem becomes read-only
> 
> Lightner, Jeff wrote:
>> Well if you compare to yesteryear - I remember first time I read the
>> manual for the AT&T 3B2-400 thinking "how could anyone ever need 8 MB
>> of memory" - that was back when you had to get add-on cards to get to
>> 640K in a PC-XT.
> 
> I'm pretty sure 3b2-300 was limited to 8 and the 400 would go to 16?
>> -----Original Message----- From: ale-bounces at ale.org
>> [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Greg Freemyer Sent: Friday,
>> June 11, 2010 5:33 PM To: mike at trausch.us; Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
>> - Yes! We run Linux! Subject: Re: [ale] mounted filesystem becomes
>> read-only
>>
>> RE: USB 3
>>
>> I've got a friend that bought a high-end machine (water cooled, lots 
>> of cpu / ram, internal raid) for work.  (Can you say overkill?)
>>
>> Anyway, it has USB 3 and he got a USB 3 carrier.
>>
>> He said with large files he's getting close to 6GB / min copying in 
>> big files to his raid, which is very good even for Sata/eSata.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Michael B. Trausch <mike at trausch.us>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:55 -0400, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
>>>> (Or maybe a sadist like BOFH who wants to make sure his users
>>>> don't expect good performance.)
>>> I would love to take a time machine and go back to 1950 with my
>>> desktop and a USB-attached 2.2 TB of storage.  Of course, I might
>>> then be hung or drowned or something, being accused of being a
>>> black magician...
>>>
>>> It is interesting, though, that even figures that are very very
>>> very fast are still not fast enough for us.  USB 3 probably won't
>>> even provide "good" performance for disk-based I/O, just because it
>>> seems impossible to get the full advertised bandwidth with USB even
>>> if a device is the only one on the bus.  *shrug*
>>>
>>> --- Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Ale mailing list 
>>> Ale at ale.org http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale See JOBS,
>>> ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

"I predict future happiness for America if they can prevent
the government from wasting the labors of the people under
the pretense of taking care of them."
- Thomas Jefferson