Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-sparc
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-sparc: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-sparc@g.o
From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
Subject: Re: 2.6 kernel development
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:13:50 +0000 (UTC)
-----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kernel is out of date.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 <munin@...> 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:jason.b.williams@...]
>> 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) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc, devrel)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDLNtzQa6M3+I///cRAqeZAJ9bcAWA5p6kKwSBBH0py20PrdqsAQCfVa4v
T0XNoVnEw1yLJoiJI8g0gLs=
=tkFL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-sparc@g.o mailing list


Replies:
Re: 2.6 kernel development
-- Jason Williams
References:
2.6 kernel development
-- Jason Williams
RE: 2.6 kernel development
-- Andrew Ruef
Re: 2.6 kernel development
-- Jason Williams
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-sparc: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: 2.6 kernel development
Next by thread:
Re: 2.6 kernel development
Previous by date:
Re: 2.6 kernel development
Next by date:
Re: 2.6 kernel development


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-sparc mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.