Mailing List Archive

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:14:22 -0500 Jason Williams
<jason.b.williams@gmail.com> wrote:
| 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?

Because you're running it on different hardware which doesn't happen to
be affected by any of the weird unfixed bugs. The kernels are just the
same.

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

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@gmail.com]
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

--
gentoo-sparc@gentoo.org mailing list



--
gentoo-sparc@gentoo.org mailing list

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?

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@speakeasy.net> 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@gmail.com]
> 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
>
> --
> gentoo-sparc@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
>
> --
> gentoo-sparc@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

--
gentoo-sparc@gentoo.org mailing list

-----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@speakeasy.net> 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@gmail.com]
>> 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@gentoo.org>
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@gentoo.org mailing list

ahh, interesting ... my U60 is a (2x450), so according to what you've
just said, I'm extremely lucky to have it running as stable as I do
(not to mention the raid mirroring working like a charm). Until I just
have an abundance of time, I'll likely just continue using my 2.6.6
kernel. I just set a crontab to run a simple init 6 once a week, so I
at least shouldn't get the lockups anymore.

jbw

On 9/17/05, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----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@speakeasy.net> 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@gmail.com]
> >> 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@gentoo.org>
> 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@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

--
gentoo-sparc@gentoo.org mailing list