| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Y z
n00b
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 51
Location: Leiden, The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:52 pm Post subject: New kernel layout question |
 |
|
Anyone knows whether, in the new kernel-layout,
the xfs-sources is equally as well optimized as
the gentoo-sources? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bob_t
n00b
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 23
Location: ithaca, ny, usa
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 2:41 am Post subject: Re: New kernel layout question |
|
|
| Y z wrote: | Anyone knows whether, in the new kernel-layout,
the xfs-sources is equally as well optimized as
the gentoo-sources? |
From my reading of the email sent around on the gentoo-user list, it doesn't look like it, but I'd like to hope I'm wrong. It would suck to get cut out of the loop, or at least to be behind it soley 'cause of XFS.
I admit, I'm a kernel compiling n00b, but even if the new kernel layout for XFS doesn't include the optimizations, couldn't we just patch them in manually? Educate me if I'm wrong.
b |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NU-Slacker
n00b
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 69
Location: Northwestern University
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It does seem like the xfs kernel will not have the additional patching done to it like the gentoo
kernel. This is very unfortunate, especially since xfs is a highly recommended journaling filesystem.
I converted all my partitions to xfs when I switched to gentoo from Reiser and ext3 partly because the kernel supported it without me have to find a patch for it. Now Im back to square one.
I really do hope that xfs support will be added to the gentoo kernel by default in the future... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob_t
n00b
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 23
Location: ithaca, ny, usa
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NU-Slacker wrote: |
I converted all my partitions to xfs when I switched to gentoo from Reiser and ext3 partly because the kernel supported it without me have to find a patch for it. Now Im back to square one. . |
Me too, which is why the new kernel layout sucks for us. But if patching it is easy enough, why can't we XFS users just take a vanilla kernel, patch it with some pre-empt stuff, and go to town...seems to me that's the best way to go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NU-Slacker
n00b
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 69
Location: Northwestern University
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2002 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're probably right...  However, I really liked having the mundane stuff like patching the kernel done for me (after all, who doesn't). All we can hope for is that someday XFS will find its way back into the main gentoo kernel source again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob_t
n00b
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 23
Location: ithaca, ny, usa
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2002 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NU-Slacker wrote: | | All we can hope for is that someday XFS will find its way back into the main gentoo kernel source again. |
I hope so too. Does anyone know why they divided it out to begin with? Are there bugs that we need to worry about or what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phaze3k
n00b
Joined: 24 Apr 2002
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2002 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually I had serious problems with the gentoo kernel sources. USB support kept crashing under high loads, but a re-compile with the vanilla kernel has sorted the problem (and I've added the preempt and lock breaking patch too  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Kernel & Hardware
