Yikes. I kind of need some of the modules in the mdk kernel. That is what is
stopping me from geting the vanila kernel. I could try and find and compile
those modules myself, but I will get more headaches with it than solve probs
(it would take too long to get it all together again). I have a pretty
sensitive hardware/drivers configuration (nforce2 mobo + radeon 9700 pro to
start with...). It took me quite a couple of months till all the
patches/drivers were available, and it took me about 2 weeks of fiddling
with it till I got the radeon 9700 pro to play nice (to install the driver
so I would also have openGL). I am pretty reticent in going through all the
pains again just to gain better response. Last time I tried the multimedia
kernel, it crashed on my config directly at boot... I hoped I could backup
my current kernel situation and try a patch... hmmm... Makes my hair raise
when I think of the option to reinstall all.... :) I think I will wait to
see if someone reports success with this patch on mdk kernel. Thx for your
answer.

Best regards,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] Re: New 2.4.21 Variable HZ question.


> Adrian,
>
> What little experience I've had patching kernels, and what I've read, has
led
> me to the conclusion it's better to use a vanilla kernel.org version.
> Mandrake adds quite a few patches for their stock kernel, and it's
possible
> adding more would cause conflicts. What I've been doing is loading the
> Mandrake stock .config file into xconfig as a starting point with generic
> kernels, and then customizing that for my hardware. I've wound up with my
own
> .config file, which I use as my starting point on this box when I try a
new
> kernel. It took many configurations in my learning curve to see what
worked
> best with each kernel version- I've used 2.4.19, 2.4.20, 2.4.21pres,
2.4.21,
> and lots of 2.5.xx's. The 2.4.xx generally work out fine, but all 2.5.xx
are
> still problematic, at least for me.
>
> On your Hz question, I think yes, you need that patch to be able to
utilize
> different values for that parameter. Apparently, the Mandrake multi-media
> kernel is the stock kernel with preemptive and low-latency patches
applied,
> so that implies you might be able to apply the Hz ck patch to a stock MDK
> kernel, and get away with it.  I guess the only way to find out is try it,
> and change the Hz line in make xconfig to 1000Hz, and see if it works.
> However, Con Kolivas definitely feels that problems might arise when
trying
> to use his extra patches on a heavily patched kernel like MDK, and
recommends
> the official kernel.org version.
>
> I personally like the MDK multimedia kernel over the stock MDK, and the
> vanilla ck3 patched kernel over the MDK multimedia- but that's only on my
> specific hardware. Your experience may be different.
>
> Robert C.
>
> On Saturday 28 June 2003 04:23, Adrian Golumbovici wrote:
> > Do the Mandrake kernels need that patch too in order to be able to use
that
> > Hz thing, or is it included in the default kernel sources? If it needs
the
> > patch, is there a Mandrake specific patch for kernel-2.4.21 or can we
use
> > the patch in the link you posted without further troubles?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Adrian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: [expert] Re: New 2.4.21 Variable HZ question.
> >
> > > I found this page that gives pretty good explanations of the subject.
> >
> > Makes me
> >
> > > want to recompile and try 1000Hz. I did a google search for "variable
Hz
> > > redhat" and it listed a few other good pages.
> > >
> > > http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=464
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > On Saturday 28 June 2003 00:31, Joeb wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:51:28 -0400
> > > > Robert Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > I'd really
> > > > > be interested in learning about RedHat's thinking on this subject-
> > > > > can you point us to where you learned about this? I'm all for
doing
> >
> > anything
> >
> > > > > to increase performance.
> > > >
> > > > That's my problem, I can't remember where I found it on the web!  I
> > > > know
> >
> > it
> >
> > > > was back during the 8.0 days of Mandrake.  I recall a post, that I
> >
> > thought
> >
> > > > was on one of the Mandrake lists, but I sure can't find it.  The
post
> > > > pointed to an article about increasing the HZ size and how it
improved
> > > > response times for desktop users.  It also stated that Redhat was
doing
> > > > this with their kernels, which is why their i386 seemed so snappy
> >
> > compared
> >
> > > > to Mandrake and Suse.  The downside was something about timings
being
> >
> > off
> >
> > > > for some tools because the items in /proc weren't aware that the HZ
had
> > > > been changed.  It was my understanding with Redhat 9, they continued
> >
> > this
> >
> > > > practice of changing the HZ but also modified the tools that
calculate
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > various things in /proc.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry I don't have more information, but I have long since given
up
> > > > finding the original article.  It seems Google wants to return
50,000+
> >
> > hits
> >
> > > > everytime I try and after a few hundred, I give up.
> > > >
> > > > If I ever find my hard copy, I'll type it back in to the list.
> > > >
> > > > Joeb
> > > >
> > > > p.s. It's also my understanding that the 2.5/2.6 kernel has
increased
> >
> > this
> >
> > > > setting.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >- ----
> >
> > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Reply via email to