Hi Jimmy, Thanks, I saw that and am using gcc-3.3 at the moment. I will try to enforce 3.3 in the packaging (Depends: on gcc, then gcc-3.3 in the Makefiles, etc.)
Regards Alastair Jimmy Tang wrote: > Hi Alastair, > > just poking through the package so far, and i noticed that etch is using > gcc4.1 and cross referencing the lustre-discuss list, i noticed that > even though 4.x is targetted but isnt working right, 3.3 / 3.4 seems to be > a better choice for compilers for lustre (at least for now) if one wantss a > more stable system. > > quoting the lustre discuss list (though a nearly a month old at this > point in time)... > > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:30:41 -0400 > From: "Peter J. Braam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [Lustre-discuss] GCC version(s) > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It looks like it consumes more stack than the gcc3 family, and we have > seen crashes due to that. We are not 100% sure about this, but this is > what we are guessing at the moment. > > - Peter - > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:12 AM > > To: Peter J. Braam > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Lustre-discuss] GCC version(s) > > > > From: "Peter J. Braam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:53:02 -0400 > > > > Hi > > > > The gcc4 problem will be tackled during the coming > > months. We hope, of > > course, to increase our agility and keep up a little better. > > > > That's good to hear. > > > > What exactly is the problem with gcc4? It won't compile? > > Wierd errors at runtime? Something else? > > > > > > > Jimmy. > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 01:24:44PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > >> Jimmy Tang wrote: >> >>> Hi Alastair, >>> >>> >>> >>>> The 2.6.16 code I have works for light use: survives some tests such as >>>> bonnie, etc. >>>> but hangs in large workloads: I'm debugging this, but would prefer to >>>> target 2.6.17 for Etch. >>>> (even if we don't get in the Etch release, I'd like to support the >>>> stable kernel.) Some patches >>>> ported to 2.6.17. >>>> >>>> >>> Out of curiousity what sort of heavy workloads are you trying out on the >>> system? >>> >>> >>> >> None at the moment; we've a small test cluster that had driver issues up >> to 2.6.17, and so i'm trying out 2.6.17. >> >>> I'd be interested in testing the package out on a small test cluster >>> here as well for users who have heavy IO needs. >>> >>> also is there any interest in testing these patches for 2.6.16/17 with >>> with the openib patches/stacks? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> give it a bit to sort out some issues with the packaging. The current >> head-of-tree >> in the repo is definitely a Work in progress, concentrating on merging >> current work >> by Goswin von Brederlow and myself (and others); I plan to get an >> experimental release >> worth proper testing, then we can add openib patches. I'll email you as >> soon as thats >> ready. Do you have openib patches for 2.6.16/17 ? >> >>> Jimmy. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Alastair >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > ---end quoted text--- > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]