<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>h3x.no &#187; Hardware</title>
	<atom:link href="http://h3x.no/category/hardware/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://h3x.no</link>
	<description>Tor Henning Ueland`s thoughts about technology and other stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:24:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The effects of old NIC drivers on Data Protector</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2011/09/06/the-effects-of-old-nic-drivers-on-data-protector</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2011/09/06/the-effects-of-old-nic-drivers-on-data-protector#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:09:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data protector]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drivers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NIC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=1074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During the Data Protector migration we noticed that the performance on the new Data Protector Cell Manager was a lot lower than the performance on the old solution. Speeds of around 100Mbit was the best we ever could get from &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2011/09/06/the-effects-of-old-nic-drivers-on-data-protector">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During the Data Protector migration we noticed that the performance on the new Data Protector Cell Manager was a lot lower than the performance on the old solution. Speeds of around 100Mbit was the best we ever could get from it, although the machine is running on a gigabit network.</p>
<p>To make the case even more strange, performance on other network tasks was quite normal where the gigabit  connection was maxed ASAP.</p>
<p>After some digging, the problem turned out to be that the server was running the old default drivers for the NIC (Broadcom BCM5708S netXtreme II GigE). Windows update has in the latest Windows versions become better on delivering driver updates but that was not the case this time.</p>
<p>After installing the newest drivers from Broadcom`s website the performance jumped straight to gigabit even on Data Protector.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2011/09/06/the-effects-of-old-nic-drivers-on-data-protector/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expanding a kVM disk image</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2011/08/14/expanding-a-kvm-disk-image</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2011/08/14/expanding-a-kvm-disk-image#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kvm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qemu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[windows]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=1055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Had to expand a KVM virtual machine today. Luckily, that`s pretty straight forward. You simply create a new disk image with the extra size needed, merge it into the original disk and voila. Then you just need to partition in &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2011/08/14/expanding-a-kvm-disk-image">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Had to expand a KVM virtual machine today. Luckily, that`s pretty straight forward. You simply create a new disk image with the extra size needed, merge it into the original disk and voila. Then you just need to partition in the extra space and you are good to go.</p>
<p><strong>How-to:</strong></p>
<p><strong>1: Halt your virtual machine.</strong></p>
<p>You need to stop your virtual machine before going wild with the drive. Virsh stop &lt;vm name&gt;, or virsh destroy &lt;vm name&gt; if it somehow wont stop.</p>
<p><strong>2: Create a disk with the extra space needed:</strong></p>

<div class="wp_syntax"><div class="code"><pre class="bash" style="font-family:monospace;">qemu-img create <span style="color: #660033;">-f</span> raw 5gig.img 5G</pre></div></div>

<p><strong>3: Merge it into the disk you are working with</strong></p>

<div class="wp_syntax"><div class="code"><pre class="bash" style="font-family:monospace;"><span style="color: #c20cb9; font-weight: bold;">cat</span> 5gig.img <span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">&gt;&gt;</span> yourdisk.img</pre></div></div>

<p><strong>4: Boot up and and partition your drive.</strong></p>
<p>Then start up your virtual machine again with virsh start &lt;vm name&gt;. If you use Windows server, all you need to do is to visit disk managent, right click your drive with little free space and choose &#8220;extend partition&#8221;. The job takes seconds and does not require any reboot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2011/08/14/expanding-a-kvm-disk-image/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cannot open exchanger control device ([2] The system cannot find the file specified)</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2011/08/10/cannot-open-exchanger-control-device-2-the-system-cannot-find-the-file-specified</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2011/08/10/cannot-open-exchanger-control-device-2-the-system-cannot-find-the-file-specified#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[d2d]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data protector]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iSCSI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tape]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=1051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You will receive this error from (among others) Data Protector if the D2D/Tape unit has gone offline, or is not reachable from the machine controlling it. Normally the Data Protector cell manager. In Windows 2008 server you can make sure that Windows is &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2011/08/10/cannot-open-exchanger-control-device-2-the-system-cannot-find-the-file-specified">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You will receive this error from (among others) Data Protector if the D2D/Tape unit has gone offline, or is not reachable from the machine controlling it. Normally the Data Protector cell manager. In Windows 2008 server you can make sure that Windows is connected correctly via the iSCSI Initiator which you can find in the Control Panel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2011/08/10/cannot-open-exchanger-control-device-2-the-system-cannot-find-the-file-specified/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tuning Ubuntu mdadm RAID5/6</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2011/07/09/tuning-ubuntu-mdadm-raid56</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2011/07/09/tuning-ubuntu-mdadm-raid56#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ubuntu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mdadm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[raid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[raid5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[raid6]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tuning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=1038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are using mdadm RAID 5 or 6 with Ubuntu, you might notice that the performance is not all uber all the time. Reason for this is that the default tuning settings for Ubuntu is set to rather motdest &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2011/07/09/tuning-ubuntu-mdadm-raid56">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you are using mdadm RAID 5 or 6 with Ubuntu, you might notice that the performance is not all uber all the time. Reason for this is that the default tuning settings for Ubuntu is set to rather motdest values. These can lucikly easily be tuned. I will in this article increase some settings until my read and write performance against my RAID 6 has been improved a lot.</p>
<p><strong>My setup:</strong><br />
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad  CPU   Q9300<br />
RAM: 16G<br />
Drives: 11 drives in one RAID6 with drives split over two cheap PCI-E x4 controllers and the motherboard`s internal controller.</p>
<p>I will test my system between each tuning by using dd for read and write testing. Since i have a nice amount of RAM available, i will use a test file of 36G. (bs=16k) Between each test (both read and write), i clear the OS disk cache with the command:</p>

<div class="wp_syntax"><div class="code"><pre class="" style="font-family:monospace;">sync;echo <span style="">3</span> &gt; /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches</pre></div></div>

<h2><strong>Tuning stripe_cache_size </strong></h2>
<p><strong></strong>stripe_cache_size affects RAM used by mdadm to <strong>writing of data</strong>. Ubuntu`s default value is 256, you can verify your value by doing:</p>

<div class="wp_syntax"><div class="code"><pre class="bash" style="font-family:monospace;"><span style="color: #c20cb9; font-weight: bold;">cat</span> <span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>sys<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>block<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>md0<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>md<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>stripe_cache_size</pre></div></div>

<p>And changing it with:</p>

<div class="wp_syntax"><div class="code"><pre class="bash" style="font-family:monospace;"><span style="color: #7a0874; font-weight: bold;">echo</span> <span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">*</span>number<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">*</span> <span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">&gt;</span> <span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>sys<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>block<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>md0<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>md<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>stripe_cache_size</pre></div></div>

<p><strong>Test results with stripe_cache_size=256</strong><br />
- Write performance: 174 MB/s</p>
<p>Not to good, i therefore increased it some levels, each level with result is described below:</p>
<p><strong>Test results with stripe_cache_size=512</strong><br />
- Write performance: 212 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with stripe_cache_size=1024</strong><br />
- Write performance: 237 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with stripe_cache_size=2048</strong><br />
- Write performance: 254 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with stripe_cache_size=4096</strong><br />
- Write performance: 295 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with stripe_cache_size=8192</strong><br />
- Write performance: 362 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with stripe_cache_size=16384</strong><br />
- Write performance: 293 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with stripe_cache_size=32768</strong><br />
- Write performance: 326 MB/s</p>
<p>So, going from 256 to 32K ~doubled my write performance, not bad! <img src='http://h3x.no/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<h2>Tuning Read Ahead</h2>
<p>Time to change a bit on read ahead, which should impact <strong>read performance</strong>. Default read ahead value is &#8220;1536&#8243;, and you can change it with the command:</p>

<div class="wp_syntax"><div class="code"><pre class="bash" style="font-family:monospace;">blockdev <span style="color: #660033;">--setra</span> <span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">*</span>number<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">*</span> <span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>dev<span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold;">/</span>md0</pre></div></div>

<p><strong>Test results with Read Ahead @ 1536</strong><br />
- Read performance: 717 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with Read Ahead @ 4096</strong><br />
- Read performance: 746 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with Read Ahead @ 32768</strong><br />
- Read performance: 731 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with Read Ahead @ 262144</strong><br />
- Read performance: 697 MB/s</p>
<p><strong>Test results with Read Ahead @ 524288</strong><br />
- Read performance: 630 MB/s</p>
<p>So oposite of the write performance tuning, this actually became worse for most of the settings. So 4096 is the best for my system.</p>
<h1>In conclution</h1>
<p>This is just an example on how different settings can have rather large impact on a system, both for the better and for the worse. If you are going to tune your system you have to test different setting for yourself and see what works best for your setup.  Higher values does not automaticly mean better results. I ended up with &#8220;stripe_cache_size=8192&#8243; and &#8220;Read Ahead @ 4096&#8243; for my system.</p>
<p>If you want to make sure that your changes is saved when rebooting the system, remember to add these commands (with your values) in /etc/rc.local.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2011/07/09/tuning-ubuntu-mdadm-raid56/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Crucial C300 in RAID0 on a M4A87TD motherboard causes BSOD`s, hangs in Win7</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2011/04/02/two-crucial-c300-in-raid0-on-a-m4a87td-motherboard-causes-bsods-hangs-in-win7</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2011/04/02/two-crucial-c300-in-raid0-on-a-m4a87td-motherboard-causes-bsods-hangs-in-win7#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:22:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Windows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BSDO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crucial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freeze]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ssd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[windows]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So i have tried to use Two Crucial C300 in RAID0 on a M4A87TD motherboard for a while now. After a while i started experiencing BSOD`s, hangs, crashes, freezes etc. I tried to debug -everything- until i came over multiple complaints &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2011/04/02/two-crucial-c300-in-raid0-on-a-m4a87td-motherboard-causes-bsods-hangs-in-win7">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So i have tried to use Two Crucial C300 in RAID0 on a M4A87TD motherboard for a while now. After a while i started experiencing BSOD`s, hangs, crashes, freezes etc. I tried to debug -everything- until i came over multiple complaints about the same on the Crucial forums. (Not exactly the same, but enough to check it out)</p>
<p>I decided to simply remove the RAID and only use one drive for Windows 7. So far it appears to be very stable again, so hopefully the issues was related to the combination of two SSD`s in RAID0 on a AMD-RAID controller.</p>
<p>Time will tell.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2011/04/02/two-crucial-c300-in-raid0-on-a-m4a87td-motherboard-causes-bsods-hangs-in-win7/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Under 4 months left before we run out of IPv4</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2010/11/14/under-4-months-left-before-we-run-out-of-ipv4</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2010/11/14/under-4-months-left-before-we-run-out-of-ipv4#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2010 11:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=794</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The time to start implementing IPv6 is getting closer and closer. The &#8220;counters&#8221; over IPv4 now says that is just below four months left before the &#8220;apocalypse&#8221; arrive.  It will of course not be any noticeable problem for end users but ISP`s &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2010/11/14/under-4-months-left-before-we-run-out-of-ipv4">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The time to start implementing IPv6 is getting closer and closer. The &#8220;<a href="http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html">counters</a>&#8221; over IPv4 now says that is just below four months left before the &#8220;apocalypse&#8221; arrive.  It will of course not be any noticeable problem for end users but ISP`s should now really start planning for IPv6 if the haven&#8217;t done so yet.</p>
<div><script src="http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/en-us/wolf_c.js" type="text/javascript"></script></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2010/11/14/under-4-months-left-before-we-run-out-of-ipv4/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HP R5500 XR UPS: Low battery warning light</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2010/09/24/hp-r5500-xr-ups-low-battery-warning-light</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2010/09/24/hp-r5500-xr-ups-low-battery-warning-light#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:25:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UPS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have noticed the manual for the HP R5500 XR UPS does not explain all possible solutions when you want to ged rid of the low battery warning light, so here is a quick how to for resolving the issue &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2010/09/24/hp-r5500-xr-ups-low-battery-warning-light">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have noticed the manual for the HP R5500 XR UPS does not explain all possible solutions when you want to ged rid of the low battery warning light, so here is a quick how to for resolving the issue on your UPS.</p>
<ol>
<li>Start off by checking the software for the UPS,  or install it if missing (HP Power Manager)</li>
<li>Consider giving the battery fuse a kick, it`s the fuse placed back up to the right amongst the outlets (Leave it off for 15 seconds++)*</li>
<li>If you still dont have any luck, replace your battery/batteries.</li>
<li>If you are using ERM`s, make sure that the UPS knows about them. (Read the manual)</li>
</ol>
<p>PS: Remember to have redundant power set up, since you might have to give the whole ups a little kick if it`s acting very silly <img src='http://h3x.no/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>* = When turning off the battery fuse, the outlets will still get power from your input power, it just disables the batteries. When turning it on again, the UPS will start a recharge of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2010/09/24/hp-r5500-xr-ups-low-battery-warning-light/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cannot load exchanger medium (Target drive is busy.)</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2010/07/30/cannot-load-exchanger-medium-target-drive-is-busy</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2010/07/30/cannot-load-exchanger-medium-target-drive-is-busy#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[backup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tape]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you recieve the error message: Cannot load exchanger medium (Target drive is busy.) From Data Protector Manager (or from the backup reports), you have a tape &#8220;stuck&#8221; in your tape station. This is something that can happen for example &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2010/07/30/cannot-load-exchanger-medium-target-drive-is-busy">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you recieve the error message:</p>
<blockquote><p>Cannot load exchanger medium (Target drive is busy.)</p></blockquote>
<p>From Data Protector Manager (or from the backup reports), you have a tape &#8220;stuck&#8221; in your tape station. This is something that can happen for example if the tape station looses connection to the software using the tape station, (for example  a crash on the server) and the software is not setup to automaticly correct the issue itself.</p>
<p>If you want to eject the tape in use you will normally find a option for it on the tape station itself. But a good thing to do is to set up Data Protector to automaticly eject a tape that has taken over a drive.</p>
<p>1) Start Data Protector Manager GUI<br />
2) Select Devices and Media<br />
3) Right click on the library, select properties<br />
4) Go to Control Tab, and select &#8220;Eject medium&#8221;  under the busy drive handling topic</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2010/07/30/cannot-load-exchanger-medium-target-drive-is-busy/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Fix&#8221; for the slow boot of Dell XPS M1530 laptops</title>
		<link>http://h3x.no/2010/06/29/fix-for-the-slow-boot-of-dell-xps-m1530</link>
		<comments>http://h3x.no/2010/06/29/fix-for-the-slow-boot-of-dell-xps-m1530#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:46:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tor Henning Ueland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h3x.no/?p=467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many Dell XPS M1530 laptops are shipped with a DVD-rom that (appears to) have a bug in them. This bug causes the BIOS to use extra long time to check the device before continuing boot. In some cases the boot &#8230; <a href="http://h3x.no/2010/06/29/fix-for-the-slow-boot-of-dell-xps-m1530">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many Dell XPS M1530 laptops are shipped with a DVD-rom that (appears to) have a bug in them. This bug causes the BIOS to use extra long time to check the device before continuing boot. In some cases the boot time is some times up to minutes just for the BIOS to perform it`s checks. And that is when the quick boot is enabled.</p>
<p>The &#8220;fix&#8221; for this issue is to simply disable the DVD-rom in the BIOS completely (Simply set the Module Bay Device to off). As of now (june 2010), a fix is not available for this issue.</p>
<p>Edit: And yes, this does work for me! My boot time went from 2-4 minutes to seconds!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://h3x.no/2010/06/29/fix-for-the-slow-boot-of-dell-xps-m1530/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

