I actually don't have QuadControl installed, never have.  But I'll look 
into it.  In the mean time, my IIci is dead.  It seems that my hard 
drive decided that it had given all that it could and it was time to 
retire.  Time to surf Ebay!

dave

On Jan 15, 2004, at 2:50 PM, Kazuyuki Inanaga wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My Macintosh IIci + DAYSTAR Turbo040/40MHz runs tremendously
> fast on NetBSD-1.6.1. Compare the benchmarks with normal IIci.
>
> normal IIci('030/25 MHz)
> Dhrystone Benchmark, Version 2.1
> Microseconds for one run through Dhrystone:    146.6
> Dhrystones per Second:                                   6821.3
>
> IIci + DAYSTAR Turbo040/40MHz
> Dhrystone Benchmark, Version 2.1
> Microseconds for one run through Dhrystone:     25.5
> Dhrystones per Second:                                39215.7
>
> bytebench-4.1.0              FINAL SCORE                 4.0
>
> This is scored on NetBSD-1.6.1 with MacOS/CDEV/QuadControl all ON.
>
> NetBSD-1.6ZH (20040112 JST), MacOS/CDEV/QuadControl ON, I get
> uvm_fault right after NetBSD copyrights and boot sequence drops
> into db>.
> If Macos/CDEV/QuadControl/Secondary Cache is turned OFF, 1.6ZH
> boots up. This is different from dave's IIci.
>
> At 5:50 PM -0600 04.1.11, David Rogers wrote:
>>
>> I also tried booting with extensions off.  same result.  then again
>> with no nubus cards in.  still no dice.
>
> At 0:41 AM -0600 04.1.12, David Rogers wrote:
>> I have a kernel that I built on 12/28/03 that works just fine.  I'm 
>> not
>> sure what changed between then and now.
>
> I tried to boot 1.6ZG (20031221) and 1.6ZE (20031104) kernels, but
> no luck, got same MMU fault and drops into db>. This is different, too.
> What does make such differences? Any idea?
> My Turbo040 is daughter card type, and QuadControl is version 2.3.
> How about yours, dave?
>
> When QuadControl/Secondary Cache is turned OFF, my 1.6ZH runs
> much slower.
>
> Dhrystone Benchmark, Version 2.1
> Microseconds for one run through Dhrystone:     39.3
> Dhrystones per Second:                                25423.7
>
> bytebench-4.1.0              FINAL SCORE                 2.7
>
> I also put Turbo040/44MHz into SE/30 and made it "SE/40". I really
> expect to fix this. I'll try to compile 12/28/03 kernel, but I dislike
> to see that "BAD SUPER BLOCK: CAN'T FIND SUPERBLOCK" again ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Kazu Inanaga
>
>