Jes Sorensen writes:
> >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> writes:
>
> Richard> Jes Sorensen writes:
> >> 2.0.36 reliawhat?? If you are looking for GigE performance you are
> >> likely to want SMP and SMP in 2.0.36 is absolutely not realiable.
>
> Richard> There's a strong perception that 2.0.36 is robust (even
> Richard> though SMP isn't). I see people pushing for XYZ driver to be
> Richard> added to 2.0.3x for this reason. I assume if Kim is willing
> Richard> to back-port the GigE driver to 2.0.36, the option of
> Richard> forward-porting some other driver was also considered.
>
> True, from a driver maintainers point of view I'd just note that I
> have no interest in adding 2.0.x compat patches to for instance the
> acenic driver.
Yeah, but that won't stop people from wanting it :-)
> Richard> As for SMP "requirements": perhaps Kim has a 1 GHz Athalon
> Richard> and figures that should do nicely :-)
>
> Hmmm I thought I read a mail from Alan a few minutes ago stating
> that 2.2.x didn't even support the Athlon?
I can assure you that 2.2.15 works very nicely on an Athalon. I was
running it on our server when the 2.3.99 kernels had appalling VM
performance. Even MTRR support (the K7 has Intel-compatible MTRRs
while the K6 were AMD-specific; the K7 broke an assumption in the MTRR
driver which was later fixed in 2.2.x and 2.3.x kernels) works.
I think what Alan meant is that support for K7-specific features is
not available. So the kernel just treats it as a lowly PIII.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST