On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:58:16AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered
Sven Luther wrote:
I asked because another guy (with a piix chipset though), was claiming that
his chipset was not detected, and thus that dma was not activated.
If he was using 2.4.27 tell him to use 2.4.26 for now. As I've mentioned
in other mails I just fixed 2.4.27, in trunk.
--
Joshua
Sven Luther wrote:
It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
those myst likely to be involved:
ide_generic 1472 0
sis551316776 1
hpt366 22788 2
ide_disk
] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Quoting Joey Hess:
15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version
from testing. This will *break* some old released install media
(floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision.
Do other subgroups of Debian have a
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
I wonder what needs to happen to have
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
I wonder what needs to happen to have a
John Summerfield wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4
was new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a
earlier version of the same chipset.
Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB
Steve Langasek wrote:
We depend on the experts (the kernel team) for the information we need
in order to make good decisions -- or better, to help *you* make good
decisions.
Based on this thread and other discussions, I understand that the
current 2.4.26 packages are unsuitable for release
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 04:01:35PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4
was new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a
earlier version of the same chipset.
Here
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.02 seconds = 39.74 MB/sec
/dev/hdg: Timing
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
by
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were
noted
by tbm [3].
One thing to bear in mind when making this
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd
like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4
kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:48:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4
kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep
Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
It will be 2.6.8.
If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is
misleading.
Given the diff to .1
Sven Luther wrote:
All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests
with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is
30% faster with the 2.4 kernel.
Have you reported a bug report on this ? And with which 2.6 kernel was it ?
I haven't.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
It will be 2.6.8.
If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
in the Debian packages? I cannot find
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:10:55PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests
with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is
30% faster with the 2.4 kernel.
Have you reported a
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4 was
new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a earlier
version of the same chipset.
Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Quoting Joey Hess:
15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version
from testing. This will *break* some old released install media
(floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release.
Why is this necessary ? I'm a bit
* Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:26:37PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
* Steve Langasek wrote:
I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by
Monday.
I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
weekend, please make
Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
[snip]
I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be
build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes some security
issues.
... not
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
by
dann frazier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
by tbm [3].
One thing to bear in mind when
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
by tbm [3].
All 2.4 architectures have 2.4.27 kernel images built.
30 matches
Mail list logo
