lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Kernel 2.6.0-test2 vs 2.2.12 -- Some observations
    From
    Date
    On Iau, 2003-08-07 at 18:23, J.C. Wren wrote:
    > For reasons unknown, whereas 2.2.12 picked up the values for how much memory
    > we have stuffed into a fake BIOS block, 2.6.0-test2 does not (nor did
    > 2.5.69). I have to set a mem=7744k into the boot params. Anything more, and
    > I get kernel paging faults at startup. I'm unclear why this is, but since it
    > can be worked around at the moment, I can let it lay.

    2.5.x/2.6 (and 2.4) use E820 memory sizing before E801 and earlier
    systems. Make sure your E820 tables are right I guess.

    > I have not run hdparm on the drives, but e2fsck coming up on a dirty
    > partition is amazingly slow on 2.6.0-test2. On a 32MB CF card with 25% usage
    > (about 300 files), it takes less than 10 seconds under 2.2.12. On
    > 2.6.0-test2, I'm seeing on the order of 40+ seconds. Long enough, in fact,
    > that the watchdog that makes sure the system has booted into the application
    > is timing out and punting the system.

    You bluecat probably sets umask by default if its designed to keep
    latency low. So hdparm -u1 /dev/hda first.

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:9.200 / U:1.452 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site