Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:33:46 EST, Jeff Garzik said:
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 05:26:47PM -0800, jjs wrote:
>> > But according to my understanding, a more accurate
>> > measure of nptl performance would require a current
>> > glibc, with the nptl-specific enhancements -
>> >
>> > or am I missing something here?
>>
>> You are correct: you need a recent 2.5 kernel and a recent glibc.
>
> I'll bite - how recent a glibc? Does the 2.3.1 RPM that RedHat included
> on the Phoebe beta qualify, or do we need even more bleeding-edge?
https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/phil-list/2003-January/000413.html
lists what sources are needed for the latest nptl.
Phoebe beta had a slightly earlier snapshot of nptl and glibc.
As far as the kernel goes, it's rumored
( https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/phil-list/2003-January/000419.html )
that you're better off using a recent 2.5 kernel than the 2.4 backport
in phoebe.
I haven't tried NPTL myself, though, so what do I know...
- Dan
-- Dan Kegel Linux User #78045 http://www.kegel.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:36 EST