468,249 Members | 1,512 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,249 developers. It's quick & easy.

Problem with hdparam

Hi,

I'm trying to use the -k (or -K) switch to hdparam, which is meant to
keep settings after a restart.

But if I do
hdparam -k1 /dev/hda
and then reboot, calling
hdparam -k /dev/hda
to find the "keep settings" status shows that it's now turned itself off
again!

Can anyone explain what's going on?

Very many thanks in advance!

MJB
Apr 10 '08 #1
19 1209
In article <ft**********@aioe.org>, Mark Berry <no****@nospam.comwrote:
>I'm trying to use the -k (or -K) switch to hdparam, which is meant to
keep settings after a restart.
>But if I do
hdparam -k1 /dev/hda
and then reboot, calling
hdparam -k /dev/hda
to find the "keep settings" status shows that it's now turned itself off
again!
>Can anyone explain what's going on?
Not a clue. Which section of the C which C standard describes
hdparam ?

When I check around, hdparam seems more likely to be a Linux
utility, not a C library call. If so and I haven't merely had
a major memory lapse about what is in the C library, you would
be better checking a forum devoted to your brand of Linux.
--
"After all, what problems has intellectualism ever solved?"
-- Robert Gilman
Apr 10 '08 #2
Mark Berry wrote:
>
Hi,

I'm trying to use the -k (or -K) switch to hdparam, which is meant to
keep settings after a restart.

But if I do
hdparam -k1 /dev/hda
and then reboot, calling
hdparam -k /dev/hda
to find the "keep settings" status shows that it's now turned itself off
again!

Can anyone explain what's going on?
Yes. There's an error on line 42.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>

Apr 10 '08 #3
On 10 Apr 2008 at 19:06, Mark Berry wrote:
I'm trying to use the -k (or -K) switch to hdparam, which is meant to
keep settings after a restart.

But if I do
hdparam -k1 /dev/hda
and then reboot, calling
hdparam -k /dev/hda
to find the "keep settings" status shows that it's now turned itself off
again!

Can anyone explain what's going on?
First up, the program is called hdparm, not hdparam.

As to your problem, you're misunderstanding what the -k and -K flags do:
they preserve certain settings (dmu options for -k, and APWSXZ options
for -K), but only across soft resets (e.g. if the IDE bus gets reset as
part of an error recovery sequence) - there's no reason to expect the
flags to preserve anything across a reboot.

Apr 10 '08 #4
Aha, that explains it! It's slightly annoying, though...

Thanks to everyone who answered.
Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 at 19:06, Mark Berry wrote:
>>I'm trying to use the -k (or -K) switch to hdparam, which is meant to
keep settings after a restart.

But if I do
hdparam -k1 /dev/hda
and then reboot, calling
hdparam -k /dev/hda
to find the "keep settings" status shows that it's now turned itself off
again!

Can anyone explain what's going on?


First up, the program is called hdparm, not hdparam.

As to your problem, you're misunderstanding what the -k and -K flags do:
they preserve certain settings (dmu options for -k, and APWSXZ options
for -K), but only across soft resets (e.g. if the IDE bus gets reset as
part of an error recovery sequence) - there's no reason to expect the
flags to preserve anything across a reboot.
Apr 10 '08 #5
Mark Berry wrote:
Aha, that explains it! It's slightly annoying, though...
Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Apr 10 '08 #6
In article <66*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes.
Though this is good practice during a conversation, I see no reason
to apply it rigidly when thanking someone for an explanation.

-- Richard
--
:wq
Apr 11 '08 #7
In article <ft***********@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Tobin <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrote:
>In article <66*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>>Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes.

Though this is good practice during a conversation, I see no reason
to apply it rigidly when thanking someone for an explanation.
Um, Default Loser doesn't care about such sublties.
He just sees an opportunity to do one of his beloved TPAs, and boom!

Apr 11 '08 #8
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Mark Berry wrote:
>Aha, that explains it! It's slightly annoying, though...

Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Oh, for goodness sake. It was a one liner thank you. Grow up.
Apr 11 '08 #9
Kenny McCormack wrote:
X doesn't care about such sublties.
ITYM subtilties or subtleties
Apr 11 '08 #10
In article <47***********************@news.free.fr>,
Noob <root@localhostwrote:
>Kenny McCormack wrote:
>X doesn't care about such sublties.

ITYM subtilties or subtleties
Probably so. But I definitely meant Default Loser, not X.

Apr 11 '08 #11
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:34:39 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Default User said:
>Richard Harter wrote:
>>On 11 Apr 2008 15:53:31 GMT, "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>There's no reason for the person to quote the whole message to post
a thanks. He could trim all but a small slice to establish
identity, then correctly post under that.

He could have, but he chose not to, just as you could choose not
to be a bandwidth wasting public nuisance but instead choose to
be one.

You are entitled to your opinion. You could also have, long ago, put in
a filter for the "-TPA" that I so thoughtfully add to the subject line.
As though I should know or care what -TPA might signify.
>>
*plonk*
All things considered, in this case being plonked might be
considered to be an honor. In any case it's quite alright with
me. Quite as an aside, and without any application to the
current thread, many consider those who publicly announce that
they are plonking someone as being overly full of themselves, as
though their indignation was a matter of concern to the world.
No doubt it is no such thing, but rather merely a matter of lack
of self control and the inability to refrain from spewing
emotional reactions into the internet.
>
Of course you're right that the top-poster shouldn't have done it - he
should have snipped and context-posted. Nevertheless, killfiling
reasonable people like Richard Harter rather than listening to what they
have to say about the subject is not itself a reasonable act. Neither is
it reasonable that a significant fraction of your contributions to this
newsgroup seem to consist entirely of net-copping.

I suggest that you look through your Sent directory at, say, the last 100
articles you've posted to this group, and just work out what percentage of
them contain actual technical content. You may be alarmed to discover just
how low the number is, and just how high is your proportion of net-nit
articles.

If you are, as I continue to believe, a reasonable fellow, you might not
follow the above advice but you'll at least stop to think about it.

Alternatively, you could always plonk me, too. There is no dishonour in
sharing a killfile with Richard Harter.
I thank you for your kind words. To be fair, I dare say "default
user" doesn't recognize that people might perceive his
"corrections" as being an annoyance - in part because he
killfiles anyone who might suggest such a thing. Also, to be
fair, I hadn't rapped his knuckles before so I can't blame him
for being upset.

That said, I am quite done with the subject. Unlike some I was
not put on this Earth to admonish the usenet pecadillos of
others. If I do so from time to time, it is merely the
expression of exasperation. It is a fault; I own it. I know
quite well net nuisances will be what they will be and that
casting animadversions is a seed that will bear no fruit.

Also unlike some, I have no killfiles. If "default user" chooses
to apologize, I will cheerfully accept his apologies.
Richard Harter, cr*@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.
Jun 27 '08 #12
Default User said:

<snip>
I don't see any more reason this time than the last that you
complained.
<shrug>
Then I came up with a way for you to not be bothered, which
I see you aren't even using.
Actually, I do have a filter set up for TPA. My filters are only on
*sometimes*, though - those who, like me, use KNode will perhaps
understand this better than others. KNode includes filtered articles in
its counts, so you don't *know* that you've read everything you want to
and not read everything you don't want to until you've turned off the
filter and eyeballed the scores of the remaining articles. Not ideal, but
there you are. Anyway, when I saw an article by Richard Harter in the
'unread' pile, naturally I wanted to read it - so I did.
>Alternatively, you could always plonk me, too. There is no dishonour
in sharing a killfile with Richard Harter.

Are you to going to rude and insulting, like him?
That sentence no verb. I don't agree that Richard Harter was either
particularly rude or particularly insulting (although tactful he was
*not*). I don't completely agree with his position on net-copping, but he
does have a point, and he was expressing that point. I think he was
uncharitable to say that you are a bandwidth-wasting public nuisance. But
had he said (what I suspect he actually meant) that a large proportion of
your articles are a bandwidth-wasting public nuisance, I'd have agreed.
If so, then you will plonked.
Why should I care about that? You hardly ever provide technical corrections
to my articles, so of what value is it to me that you read my articles?
Why, in fact, should your plonking me bother me in the slightest? Why, in
fact, should it bother *anyone*?

Okay, so you've been silly enough to plonk Richard Harter. I reckon that's
going to cost you more knowledge than it will cost him.

If not, I don't see why I would. I believe you are unfairly
maligning my reasons for plonking him.
And I believe you should not net-cop people unless you are, at the very
least, also in a position to provide them with good technical help.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #13
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Richard Harter wrote:
>On 11 Apr 2008 15:53:31 GMT, "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
There's no reason for the person to quote the whole message to post
a thanks. He could trim all but a small slice to establish
identity, then correctly post under that.

He could have, but he chose not to, just as you could choose not
to be a bandwidth wasting public nuisance but instead choose to
be one.

You are entitled to your opinion. You could also have, long ago, put in
a filter for the "-TPA" that I so thoughtfully add to the subject line.

*plonk*

Brian
TPA? LOL. Who do you think you are? Pedantic busy body.

Jun 27 '08 #14
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Default User said:
>Richard Harter wrote:
>>On 11 Apr 2008 15:53:31 GMT, "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>There's no reason for the person to quote the whole message to post
a thanks. He could trim all but a small slice to establish
identity, then correctly post under that.

He could have, but he chose not to, just as you could choose not
to be a bandwidth wasting public nuisance but instead choose to
be one.

You are entitled to your opinion. You could also have, long ago, put in
a filter for the "-TPA" that I so thoughtfully add to the subject line.

*plonk*

Of course you're right that the top-poster shouldn't have done it - he
should have snipped and context-posted. Nevertheless, killfiling
reasonable people like Richard Harter rather than listening to what they
have to say about the subject is not itself a reasonable act. Neither is
it reasonable that a significant fraction of your contributions to this
newsgroup seem to consist entirely of net-copping.
Significant being a euphemism for at least 90% I hope.

All Brian does is post "me toos" and tell people off for posting
styles. Possibly more useless than Chuck. Twink and Kenny had his number
a long time ago.

Jun 27 '08 #15
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Default User said:
Richard Harter wrote:
>He could have, but he chose not to, just as you could choose not
to be a bandwidth wasting public nuisance but instead choose to
>Of course you're right that the top-poster shouldn't have done it -
he should have snipped and context-posted. Nevertheless, killfiling
reasonable people like Richard Harter rather than listening to what
they have to say about the subject is not itself a reasonable act.

Had he merely expressed that, I would have had no problem. Instead, he
was unnecessarily confrontational and insulting. If he chooses to
apologize (not likely) one of you can reply with it quoted and I'll
change my mind.
>Neither is it reasonable that a significant fraction of your
contributions to this newsgroup seem to consist entirely of
net-copping.

Beats endless arguments with Jacob Navia. At least I stuck to my word
about flagging the posts so that regulars who didn't want to see them
could create a filter.
Miaow!

Default User is now proposing group "standard" subject additions for
filtering his worthless netkop posts! Woo hoo!
Jun 27 '08 #16
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
><sighYes, I know that. I've snipped your defence of that position
not because I'm trying to conceal or ignore it, but because I'm not
trying to persuade you or defeat your arguments. I'm only trying to
argue that plonking Richard Harter was a mistake on your part.

Has he apologized for his rude remark? That's the only thing that can
make me change my mind.

LOL. You want Heathfield to bring you the news since you have Richard
killfiled? Grow up. You sound like a little kid throwing his toys out of
the cot.
Jun 27 '08 #17
In article <ft**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
>><sighYes, I know that. I've snipped your defence of that position
not because I'm trying to conceal or ignore it, but because I'm not
trying to persuade you or defeat your arguments. I'm only trying to
argue that plonking Richard Harter was a mistake on your part.

Has he apologized for his rude remark? That's the only thing that can
make me change my mind.


LOL. You want Heathfield to bring you the news since you have Richard
killfiled? Grow up. You sound like a little kid throwing his toys out of
the cot.
This whole exchange is hilarious on so many levels.

Why should one Usenetter care who is in another Usenetter's killfile?
And in this context, I mean "care" to the point of wanting him to change
it (not just "care" in the sense of idle curiosity - note that many
people passionately believe that we want to know [in a gossipy sort of
way] who they are killfiling, and I can almost understand this point of
view [I like gossip as well as the next guy], but it is quite another
leap forward to actually be upset that someone else is killfiling
someone).

That Sir Richard is actually upset enough to argue passionately on
Richard Harter's behalf, to get him out of the Loser's killfile, is
truly loony beyond any previous measure.

Unless, of course, it really is the case that this whole ng is being run
like a female high school clique. Which, as we all know by now, if
someone we had not already known, is clearly the case.

Jun 27 '08 #18
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <ft**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
>>><sighYes, I know that. I've snipped your defence of that position
not because I'm trying to conceal or ignore it, but because I'm not
trying to persuade you or defeat your arguments. I'm only trying to
argue that plonking Richard Harter was a mistake on your part.

Has he apologized for his rude remark? That's the only thing that can
make me change my mind.


LOL. You want Heathfield to bring you the news since you have Richard
killfiled? Grow up. You sound like a little kid throwing his toys out of
the cot.

This whole exchange is hilarious on so many levels.

Why should one Usenetter care who is in another Usenetter's killfile?
And in this context, I mean "care" to the point of wanting him to change
it (not just "care" in the sense of idle curiosity - note that many
people passionately believe that we want to know [in a gossipy sort of
way] who they are killfiling, and I can almost understand this point of
view [I like gossip as well as the next guy], but it is quite another
leap forward to actually be upset that someone else is killfiling
someone).

That Sir Richard is actually upset enough to argue passionately on
Richard Harter's behalf, to get him out of the Loser's killfile, is
truly loony beyond any previous measure.

Unless, of course, it really is the case that this whole ng is being run
like a female high school clique. Which, as we all know by now, if
someone we had not already known, is clearly the case.
But it's quite clear why DL is so miffed. RH has publicly slapped him
down by pretty much saying his contributions to the group are
worthless. As an ardent RH worshipper and clique wannabe, DL will feel
betrayed and there's nothing as dangerous as a lover scorned.
Jun 27 '08 #19
In article <ft**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrote:
....
>Unless, of course, it really is the case that this whole ng is being run
like a female high school clique. Which, as we all know by now, if
someone we had not already known, is clearly the case.

But it's quite clear why DL is so miffed. RH has publicly slapped him
down by pretty much saying his contributions to the group are
worthless. As an ardent RH worshipper and clique wannabe, DL will feel
betrayed and there's nothing as dangerous as a lover scorned.
Oh, yes, indeed. That is just one of the many levels.

Every once in a while, the Godfather has to assert his authority, and
make an underling eat a little crow.

Jun 27 '08 #20

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

reply views Thread by Bruce Davis | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by Kostatus | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by Sudesh Sawant | last post: by
117 posts views Thread by Peter Olcott | last post: by
28 posts views Thread by Jon Davis | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by Ammar | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Mike Collins | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
reply views Thread by kermitthefrogpy | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.