1 |
ahh, interesting ... my U60 is a (2x450), so according to what you've |
2 |
just said, I'm extremely lucky to have it running as stable as I do |
3 |
(not to mention the raid mirroring working like a charm). Until I just |
4 |
have an abundance of time, I'll likely just continue using my 2.6.6 |
5 |
kernel. I just set a crontab to run a simple init 6 once a week, so I |
6 |
at least shouldn't get the lockups anymore. |
7 |
|
8 |
jbw |
9 |
|
10 |
On 9/17/05, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> wrote: |
11 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
12 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
13 |
> |
14 |
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Jason Williams wrote: |
15 |
> |
16 |
> > hmm, interesting ... I admit, it's been a few months since I've tried, |
17 |
> > but when I did, I eventually gave up and got hold of the old 2.6.6 |
18 |
> > tree. Like Ciaran said, it's likely just the difference in hardware |
19 |
> > because the machine I have here that runs gentoo is a U60 while the |
20 |
> > one at work is a U5. That said though, I did run a very stable 2.6 |
21 |
> > kernel on this very same U60 a few months back in debian. What this |
22 |
> > line of thought leads to though is that debian gives you the most |
23 |
> > universally working 2.6 kernel version levels by default, so I must |
24 |
> > now ask: who out there runs a stable 2.6 kernel on a U60, so I'll know |
25 |
> > what version works best on it? |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> |
28 |
> The kernel-2.6.xx series seems stable on a U5. There are kernel issues |
29 |
> with all 2.6.xx kernels on U60, depending on just what U60 you have. For |
30 |
> example, most kernel-2.6.xx versions are reasonably (but not completely) |
31 |
> stable for me on U60(2x300) system, but no kernel 2.6.xx I've tried has |
32 |
> been usable on my U60(2x450) under any sort of load. Only difference |
33 |
> between the systems is the CPU set. (Well, memory might be different, but |
34 |
> disks are the same with similar partitioning scheme.) |
35 |
> |
36 |
> This problem is under investigation by the kernel developers (davem and |
37 |
> crew), but nothing has fixed this problem yet. And for your information, |
38 |
> a while ago a debian user reported seeing this problem on a debian U2 |
39 |
> system, so it does not seem to be Gentoo-specific. We see it for Gentoo |
40 |
> on U2, U60, and Netra systems, and it is easily verified. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> Current usable (but still somewhat unstable) system for me on U60(2x300) |
43 |
> is 2.6.13-rc4-vanilla out of sys-kernel/vanilla-sources, although that |
44 |
> kernel is out of date. I think people are having some success with |
45 |
> 2.6.14, but so far as I know the periodic lock-up problem is still |
46 |
> present. If you join #gentoo-sparc IRC freenode channel, you can ask |
47 |
> around and get more current information. (Also, you might get better |
48 |
> information on the 2-Creator problem you are seeing. That's supposed to |
49 |
> work, but I don't have a system I can test it on.) |
50 |
> |
51 |
> |
52 |
> |
53 |
> > All that said, it is good to know now that there's more cooperation |
54 |
> > between the sparc porting developers than I'd previously thought. |
55 |
> > Thanks guys. |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > jbw |
58 |
> > |
59 |
> > On 9/17/05, Andrew Ruef <munin@×××××××××.net> wrote: |
60 |
> >> What problems do you face running 2.6 using Gentoo sources? For the longest |
61 |
> >> time I was using 2.6.11-hardened-r15 before switching to a custom version of |
62 |
> >> 2.6.13, I had no issues... |
63 |
> >> |
64 |
> >> Andrew Ruef |
65 |
> >> |
66 |
> >> -----Original Message----- |
67 |
> >> From: Jason Williams [mailto:jason.b.williams@×××××.com] |
68 |
> >> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:14 PM |
69 |
> >> To: Gentoo Sparc |
70 |
> >> Subject: [gentoo-sparc] 2.6 kernel development |
71 |
> >> |
72 |
> >> It seems to me that there's a problem in cooperation between |
73 |
> >> distributions that port the linux kernel to sparc. The reason I say |
74 |
> >> this is, I run a very stable web/mail server on a sparc at work that |
75 |
> >> is running debian with a 2.6.8 kernel. However, in gentoo I've not |
76 |
> >> been able to get a 2.6 kernel that's currently in portage running, |
77 |
> >> much less stable. |
78 |
> >> |
79 |
> >> The dilemma here is that I much prefer gentoo sparc in every other |
80 |
> >> respect than the kernel (well maybe speed of getting a running system, |
81 |
> >> but that I understand and am willing to deal with - that's gentoo in |
82 |
> >> general;-). Why is it that their 2.6 kernel is so great while gentoo's |
83 |
> >> is so unstable? |
84 |
> >> |
85 |
> >> Anyways, that said, I have a question. Since the debian sparc 2.6 |
86 |
> >> kernel seems so stable is there any reason why I can't just take their |
87 |
> >> source tree and compile it in gentoo? It seems to me that this would |
88 |
> >> be the best solution to my dilemma. It'd essentially just be a way of |
89 |
> >> taking advantage of their one advantage over gentoo sparc. |
90 |
> >> |
91 |
> >> jbw |
92 |
> >> |
93 |
> Regards, |
94 |
> Ferris |
95 |
> - -- |
96 |
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
97 |
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc, devrel) |
98 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
99 |
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
100 |
> |
101 |
> iD8DBQFDLNtzQa6M3+I///cRAqeZAJ9bcAWA5p6kKwSBBH0py20PrdqsAQCfVa4v |
102 |
> T0XNoVnEw1yLJoiJI8g0gLs= |
103 |
> =tkFL |
104 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
105 |
> -- |
106 |
> gentoo-sparc@g.o mailing list |
107 |
> |
108 |
> |
109 |
|
110 |
-- |
111 |
gentoo-sparc@g.o mailing list |