-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Jason Williams wrote:
hmm, interesting ... I admit, it's been a few months since I've tried,
but when I did, I eventually gave up and got hold of the old 2.6.6
tree. Like Ciaran said, it's likely just the difference in hardware
because the machine I have here that runs gentoo is a U60 while the
one at work is a U5. That said though, I did run a very stable 2.6
kernel on this very same U60 a few months back in debian. What this
line of thought leads to though is that debian gives you the most
universally working 2.6 kernel version levels by default, so I must
now ask: who out there runs a stable 2.6 kernel on a U60, so I'll know
what version works best on it?
The kernel-2.6.xx series seems stable on a U5. There are kernel issues
with all 2.6.xx kernels on U60, depending on just what U60 you have. For
example, most kernel-2.6.xx versions are reasonably (but not completely)
stable for me on U60(2x300) system, but no kernel 2.6.xx I've tried has
been usable on my U60(2x450) under any sort of load. Only difference
between the systems is the CPU set. (Well, memory might be different, but
disks are the same with similar partitioning scheme.)
This problem is under investigation by the kernel developers (davem and
crew), but nothing has fixed this problem yet. And for your information,
a while ago a debian user reported seeing this problem on a debian U2
system, so it does not seem to be Gentoo-specific. We see it for Gentoo
on U2, U60, and Netra systems, and it is easily verified.
Current usable (but still somewhat unstable) system for me on U60(2x300)
is 2.6.13-rc4-vanilla out of sys-kernel/vanilla-sources, although that
kernel is out of date. I think people are having some success with
2.6.14, but so far as I know the periodic lock-up problem is still
present. If you join #gentoo-sparc IRC freenode channel, you can ask
around and get more current information. (Also, you might get better
information on the 2-Creator problem you are seeing. That's supposed to
work, but I don't have a system I can test it on.)
All that said, it is good to know now that there's more cooperation
between the sparc porting developers than I'd previously thought.
Thanks guys.
jbw
On 9/17/05, Andrew Ruef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What problems do you face running 2.6 using Gentoo sources? For the longest
time I was using 2.6.11-hardened-r15 before switching to a custom version of
2.6.13, I had no issues...
Andrew Ruef
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:14 PM
To: Gentoo Sparc
Subject: [gentoo-sparc] 2.6 kernel development
It seems to me that there's a problem in cooperation between
distributions that port the linux kernel to sparc. The reason I say
this is, I run a very stable web/mail server on a sparc at work that
is running debian with a 2.6.8 kernel. However, in gentoo I've not
been able to get a 2.6 kernel that's currently in portage running,
much less stable.
The dilemma here is that I much prefer gentoo sparc in every other
respect than the kernel (well maybe speed of getting a running system,
but that I understand and am willing to deal with - that's gentoo in
general;-). Why is it that their 2.6 kernel is so great while gentoo's
is so unstable?
Anyways, that said, I have a question. Since the debian sparc 2.6
kernel seems so stable is there any reason why I can't just take their
source tree and compile it in gentoo? It seems to me that this would
be the best solution to my dilemma. It'd essentially just be a way of
taking advantage of their one advantage over gentoo sparc.
jbw
Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc, devrel)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDLNtzQa6M3+I///cRAqeZAJ9bcAWA5p6kKwSBBH0py20PrdqsAQCfVa4v
T0XNoVnEw1yLJoiJI8g0gLs=
=tkFL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[email protected] mailing list
