>> "CE" == Chris Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CE> 2nd newbie question:
CE> I know I have to change one line in the makefile to get a comment
CE> hash removed to reveal smp=1 to get my kernel makefile ready to
CE> recompile the kernel for my twin penti
2nd newbie question:
I know I have to change one line in the makefile to get a comment
hash removed to reveal smp=1 to get my kernel makefile ready to
recompile the kernel for my twin pentium machine in SMP mode.
The catch is that I don't want to mess this up. Please would
someone te
. . .
>
> and top still shows no signs of a second processor :(
>
> Am I still missing something? It's dual P-II's (gateway ns7000)
>
> rick
>
TOP, as it is normally shipped, does not show a second CPU. It is
designed for single-CPU systems only.
If you want to get a multiple-CPU top, look
Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
> and I did a
>
> make dep clean bzImage bzlilo modules modules install
> depmod -a
> shutdown -r now
>
> and top still shows no signs of a second processor :(
>
> Am I still missing something? It's dual P-II's (gateway ns7000)
>
> rick
Telling lilo to boot your ne
teway ns7000)
We have an IBM PC Server 325 with dual P IIs, and SMP is only supported
in the unstable kernels (seems some system boards use a not quite
standard chipset). I compiled 2.1.96 and SMP was fine, but there was
too much other weird stuff to put up with :)
--
Nathan Norman
MidcoNet - 41
Steve wrote,
> That's it.
hmm, still doesn't seem to do it. My Makefile now reads,
ARCH = i386
#
# For SMP kernels, set this. We don't want to have this in the config file
# because it makes re-config very ugly and too many fundamental files depend
# on "CONFI
Rick,
That's it.
Have a good one,
Steve
Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
>
> steve wrote,
>
> > From what I've experienced, this should be
>
> > SMP=1
>
> Ahah. recompiling. So this is a 1 means use it, but defaults to 0/don't,
> r
steve wrote,
> From what I've experienced, this should be
> SMP=1
Ahah. recompiling. So this is a 1 means use it, but defaults to 0/don't,
rather than the number of processors?
thanks
rick
--
These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer.
--
My understanding of this was that SMP was a logical flag which, when set
to 1, would automatically handle any number of processors up to 16 or so.
Perhaps 16 is going a bit far but it works fine with 2.
J. Goldman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
Rick,
From what I've experienced, this should be
SMP=1
Steve Mayer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
>
> hmm. I don't seem to be getting this. From what I've read, All I need for an
> SMP kernel is to change two lines to /usr/doc/linux/Ma
hmm. I don't seem to be getting this. From what I've read, All I need for an
SMP kernel is to change two lines to /usr/doc/linux/Makefile, so that it reads
# NOTE! SMP is experimental. See the file Documentation/SMP.txt
#
SMP = 2
#
# SMP profiling options
and then do the normal
DROM drive
Sound Blaster 16 Card
All SCSI hardware removed
When compiling Linux version 2.0.33 without SMP support everything
going fine. But i run into an error with SMP support included. Durring the
compile it does the following:
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/lin
"Walter L. Preuninger II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently purchased spellcaster isdn cards, and it seems that
> Babylon(their isdn4linux, sorta) does not want to run on smp kernels.
>
> Does anyone know if isdn4linux runs/works with smp kernels
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I recently purchased spellcaster isdn cards, and it seems that
Babylon(their isdn4linux, sorta) does not want to run on smp kernels.
Does anyone know if isdn4linux runs/works with smp kernels?
Thanks,
- --
Walter L. Preuninger II
Anything out there that will breakdown %usage PER PROCESSOR (on Multi Proc
systems). top, xmcpustate, ps all sort of assume single proc. Top will imply
usage (cpu states: 95.3% user 302.4% system..) But I need to know how
it's being broken down Any one got anything!
Bruce Dobrin
Mu
Matthew Tebbens wrote:
>
> Can someone recommend a good motherboard for use with SMP Linux ?
>
> I was looking at the DK440LX by Intel for use with dual pII 300's,
> it comes with an onboard Adaptec 7895 Dual Channel SCSI controller with
> RAIDport... not sure if Linux s
Can someone recommend a good motherboard for use with SMP Linux ?
I was looking at the DK440LX by Intel for use with dual pII 300's,
it comes with an onboard Adaptec 7895 Dual Channel SCSI controller with
RAIDport... not sure if Linux supports that controller.
Thanks.
Matthew
Is there any way I can tell how each CPU on a multi-processor system is
being used?
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
---
Generated by Signify v1.02.
Thanks to you all for answering! Good news then, it seems as SMP is
not that critical... LINUX is really GREAT! Please, let me know if any of
you remembers of motherboards that it is better stay far from.
Nicola Bernardelli <[EMAIL PROTEC
find that with some I/O
> intensive application there are deadlocks, would a kernel compiled with no
> SMP run on that motherboard?
>
That will work fine. I have had a vary stable SMP system, doing heavy
I/O, using 2.0.14. It was in 2.0.15 that there was some
reorganization of the inte
rking ok (no deadlocks).
> > 2.0.30 or 2.0.29 with the deadlock-patch 6 works fine too.
> > --cut--
>
> Suppose that after buying a 2 CPU motherboard you find that with some I/O
> intensive application there are deadlocks, would a kernel compiled with no
> SMP run
t; --cut--
Suppose that after buying a 2 CPU motherboard you find that with some I/O
intensive application there are deadlocks, would a kernel compiled with no
SMP run on that motherboard?
Nicola Bernardelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Is Linux with SMP more stable in 2.1 than in 2.0 ?
I have random lockups under heavy load. I've tried the shed.c patches
from Leonard Zubkoff on the linux-smp mailing-list without any
success...
If yes, which 2.1 version is ok ?
Does debian (hamm) works ok with 2.1 ?
Thanks for any
Ricardo Kleemann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hi guys...
:
: I'm wondering if attempting to use Linux-SMP is any good. Afterall, for
: real efficiency, don't the programs/daemons/utilities have to be designed
: in such a way that they'll make use of SMP capabilities?
The op
Hi guys...
I'm wondering if attempting to use Linux-SMP is any good. Afterall, for
real efficiency, don't the programs/daemons/utilities have to be designed
in such a way that they'll make use of SMP capabilities?
For example, if I have sendmail, pop3d, httpd daemons run
Hi,
yesterday I joined the SMP-community running 2.0.21 on a TYAN Tomcat II
(yes, the working cache modules installed!) with two 133MHz Pentiums,
some SCSI devices, and no network, yet.
My Linux distribution is the lastest Debian 1.1.9.
After compiling 2.0.21 I booted the new kernel with the
501 - 526 of 526 matches
Mail list logo
