=09Hi,

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-2] Micha=B3 Pasternak wrote:

> I _am_ pro-BSD guy, I know NetBSD superiority to Linux/FreeBSD in many
> areas... but please, don't say "NetBSD has better approach to hardware,
> than Linux", because it's _not_ true.


=09I cannot agree with you. Have you yet run NetBSD and Linux with a
bad HD? In most cases Linux will just lock, panic or reboot (*this* is
true, I've seen it many times). NetBSD behaves the way it has to, keeping
the system up when possible, even when something goes wrong with the disk.
I have a co-located server (an old p133) that runs NetBSD and has one (one
of three) deffective HD. It trows some errors but the machine is running
fine. It's a 400km trip, that's why it's not fixed yet.

=09Regarding hardware, Linux may support more IDE controllers than
NetBSD, but you just cannot say it'll work better than netbsd's. Also, you
cannot compare raw transfer rates with transfer rates obtained by a
benckmark that uses also the filesystem when measuring.

=09And for old crap hardware, my machine is a Dual Pentium III with a
VIA686B controller (I know it's still crap, but now that old), and Linux
will not set drives to run at DMA mode by default (even windows does).
Kernel 2.4.19, and yes, I know how to compile Linux kernels.

=09For hdparm, if you want to fix attributes to the drives (like
forcing DMA mode), this can be done while compiling your kernel.

=09[]s
=09Ricardo.