On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan A. Davis wrote:
> > >
> >
> > That's more or less the way I see things. In any case, 2.1.x is getting
> > close enough that you may just want to start using it. Personally, 2.1.123
> > is the best 2.1.x kernel I've used so far and I would recommend it for SMP
> > systems. At least with it, you either will work or you won't boot at all
> > from what I've seen and heard on the lists.
> >
> I also have lockups on 2 of my three SMP-machines (a Gigybyte 586DX and
> a
> Asus P2B-DS), the third, a Gigybyte 686DLX runs fine - but I use no
> XFree
> on this machine.
>
> Anyway, I use 2.0.35 on these machines and considered moving to 2.1.x
> but
> heard that these kernels are around 20% slower - is this still true?
>
> Regards,
> Hermann
>
1. From my perspective, the 2.1 kernels have been faster in everything I
have tried.
2. the 2.0 kernels have *serious* problems with quad machines. Take it
from someone that tried, crashed and burned. the 2.1 kernels since around
2.1.90 or so have been rock solid. I have not had more than a couple of
hangs in the last 8 months, total... and those were on a couple of
experimental versions fricking around with APIC mapping...
>
> --
> Hermann Himmelbauer
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Addr.: A-3400 Klosterneuburg Konradtg. 13 Austria
> Tel/Fax: ++43 2243 22305
>
