Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!van-bc!mpre!parker
From: parker@mpre.UUCP (Ross Parker)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Ultrix 2.0 paging on only one disk
Message-ID: <1315@mpre.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Oct-87 13:30:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: mpre.1315
Posted: Wed Oct  7 13:30:24 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 18:45:20 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 37
Keywords: ultrix, paging
Xref: mnetor comp.unix.questions:4451 comp.unix.wizards:4764


I recently attempted installing Ultrix 2.0 on one of our Microvax-II's.
The pertinent bits of the system configuration are as follows:

	- Microvax-II with 16 Mb memory
	- Fuji Eagle on Emulex controller as boot device (ra0)
	- RA-81 on KDA-50 (ra4)
	- tk-50 cartridge tape

I installed Ultrix 2.0 on this machine, and very quickly discovered that
it ran like a slug... *much, much* slower than with Ultrix 1.2. After a
little looking around, I found that it was paging correctly from the
boot device (the eagle), but was not paging on the ra-81.
The kernel had been correctly configured for paging from both drives, both
b partitions were set up in /etc/fstab as swap partitions, and a 'swapon -a'
is in /etc/rc. I attempted to do a 'swapon /dev/ra4b' (the ra-81's b partition),
and got '/dev/ra4b: Mount device busy', which indicates that the swapon -a
had been successful. Additionally, I could access the RA-81 in every other
way. I could mount, read, and write all partitions that I had set up.

There is one thing that I can think of that is suspect. During the installation,
I found out that Ultrix 2.0 is a lot larger than Ultrix 1.2, and effectively
filled up the root partition with no room for even a second copy of vmunix.
I had therefore increased the size of the 'a' partitions on both drives to
twice the 'standard' size, and while I was at it, I also doubled the size
of both 'b' partitions. I called DEC support about the problem, and their
reply was basically that 'that was the only thing that they could think of
that was different from the normal setup, so that must be the problem'.
I don't consider that a very good answer. I'd rather have someone say
"I *know* that's what the problem, because ... ... ..."

Can anyone help? I sure hope so!

-- 
Ross Parker ...ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!mprg!parker |
Microtel Pacific Research Ltd.			    | Every silver lining
Burnaby, B.C.,					    | has a touch of grey...
Canada, eh?					    |