> I read an article about TUX in the dutch C'T a few months ago (nov/dec
> 2000, I think) - the real difference (according to the article) was the
> 2.2.x kernel used in TUX. Look at the stats of the website, they used
> Redhat 7.0 as base, with kernel 2.2.16.
TUX does not exist on 2.2 kernel
> However, taking a closer look, it turns out, that the above statement
> holds true only for 1 and 2 processor machines. Scalability already
> suffers at 4 processors, and at 8 processors, TUX 2.0 (7500) gets beaten
> by IIS 5.0 (8001), and these were measured on the same kind of box!
not really
However, taking a closer look, it turns out, that the above statement
holds true only for 1 and 2 processor machines. Scalability already
suffers at 4 processors, and at 8 processors, TUX 2.0 (7500) gets beaten
by IIS 5.0 (8001), and these were measured on the same kind of box!
not really the
I read an article about TUX in the dutch C'T a few months ago (nov/dec
2000, I think) - the real difference (according to the article) was the
2.2.x kernel used in TUX. Look at the stats of the website, they used
Redhat 7.0 as base, with kernel 2.2.16.
TUX does not exist on 2.2 kernel
They
cannot make a success compilation of 2.4.0-test11pre2 with the same
.config than for a successfull 2.4.0-test10 compilation.
Same problem when apply patch-2.4.0test11pre2-ac1 from alan cox
arch/i386/mm/mm.o: In function `do_page_fault':
arch/i386/mm/mm.o(.text+0x821): undefined reference to
cannot make a success compilation of 2.4.0-test11pre2 with the same
.config than for a successfull 2.4.0-test10 compilation.
Same problem when apply patch-2.4.0test11pre2-ac1 from alan cox
arch/i386/mm/mm.o: In function `do_page_fault':
arch/i386/mm/mm.o(.text+0x821): undefined reference to
6 matches
Mail list logo
