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kernel is out of date.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