On Sat, 2003-03-22 at 22:21, nate wrote: > Christopher Henderson said: > > > > wrong drivers, my SCSI hard disk has the very same issue - half the > > performance, and I know its the right driver. > > 2.5.x has had "broken" ide for a while, I think it's improved quite > a bit(from what i've read) in recent builds but I would suspect your > trouble is due to the apparent flux that IDE is in 2.5.x. Last I > heard, someone forward ported a buncha 2.4.x ide stuff to 2.5.x.. > depending on the ide chipset may depend on what kinda support you > get..Your lucky that you haven't experienced any noticable curroption.
I'm fairly cautious, I've asked around and checked before I installed it - no one I know has last data off of this release yet. The IDE changes apparently are mild compared to what was attempted early in the series, which was latter scraped. I'm not entirely certain if its that, performance subjectively is the same or faster - just hdparm reports slower performance. Also, it couldn't merely be the IDE layer - remember I also reported simular benchmarkable performance drops with my SCSI hard disk of equal proportions. > > Anyone else experimenting with 2.5? > > I just started experimenting with 2.4.x a few months ago, at this > rate maybe by 2006 I'll start playing with 2.6.x :) > > 2.2.x works great for most of my systems. They are even invulnerable > to the recent kernel bug(I don't compile kernels with CONFIG_KMOD) What are your thoughts on 2.4 so far? I've noticed substantial performance boosts everytime I've upgraded to a new major series. My first taste of Linux was Red Hat 5.1 with a 2.0.x series kernel, and going from that to 2.2 was very noticable, as was 2.2 > 2.4. It would appear at this point that 2.6 shall be of the same sort of scale. ~Christopher p.s. obviously I'm no developer :-) -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
