I've been using Andrea's 2.4.18rc4aa1 patches applied to a generic
2.4.18 kernel running on Intel 32-bit machines with 4GB of memory and
usually some sort of Serversorks chipset with 1-2 CPUs of various speeds
with great success for almost 6 months now. The primary base has been a
SuSE 7.2 distro but others are now being tried, including Slackware 8.1
and RH 7.[23]. The principal reason for this was to use the
00_3.5G-address-space-4 feature. I apply all patches in the directory
and have not seen a kernel failure yet with thousands of hours of "big
process" CPU time logged across many machines. I consider this to be a
pretty stable combination of kernel and patches for what I need.
RH's 2.96 gcc compiles fine but blows up or slows to a crawl (not
unexpected) when big jobs are run and the machine starts paging. I've
fixed this by putting a 2.95.3 gcc on the machine. I'll leave the
editorial comments about 2.96-RH to others.
I'm trying to write some sanitized procedures which will allow me to
pass this on to others. Non-2.96 distros (everyone except RH and
Mandrake, AFAIK) have run fine without issues, mainly because they have
a pretty stable 2.95 compiler included.
I will assume that a gcc 2.95 retrofit is required to make the -aa
patches work on RH 7.[23].
What's the correct way to retrofit a 2.95.3 compiler onto an RH 7.[23]
distro?
Is it OK to just load it into /usr/local and build it?
Does it require 'make bootstrap' to be entirely santized?
Are there other GNU packages that I should be including with the gcc
retrofit?
-ms
Just a sanity check, are you using the
current (errata) red hat gcc?
Just asking since 2.96 is all I use, and
the -aa kernels are completely stable
here - do you have a test workload to
allow me to try and duplicate your bug?
Joe
Mitch Sako wrote:
>I've been using Andrea's 2.4.18rc4aa1 patches applied to a generic
>2.4.18 kernel running on Intel 32-bit machines with 4GB of memory and
>usually some sort of Serversorks chipset with 1-2 CPUs of various speeds
>with great success for almost 6 months now. The primary base has been a
>SuSE 7.2 distro but others are now being tried, including Slackware 8.1
>and RH 7.[23]. The principal reason for this was to use the
>00_3.5G-address-space-4 feature. I apply all patches in the directory
>and have not seen a kernel failure yet with thousands of hours of "big
>process" CPU time logged across many machines. I consider this to be a
>pretty stable combination of kernel and patches for what I need.
>
>RH's 2.96 gcc compiles fine but blows up or slows to a crawl (not
>unexpected) when big jobs are run and the machine starts paging. I've
>fixed this by putting a 2.95.3 gcc on the machine. I'll leave the
>editorial comments about 2.96-RH to others.
>
>I'm trying to write some sanitized procedures which will allow me to
>pass this on to others. Non-2.96 distros (everyone except RH and
>Mandrake, AFAIK) have run fine without issues, mainly because they have
>a pretty stable 2.95 compiler included.
>
>I will assume that a gcc 2.95 retrofit is required to make the -aa
>patches work on RH 7.[23].
>
>What's the correct way to retrofit a 2.95.3 compiler onto an RH 7.[23]
>distro?
>Is it OK to just load it into /usr/local and build it?
>Does it require 'make bootstrap' to be entirely santized?
>Are there other GNU packages that I should be including with the gcc
>retrofit?
>
>-ms
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
I'm (re)installing all of the erratta now on a 7.2 machine. What RH are you
running? Unfortunately, I don't have a non-proprietary testcase to give out
because the one I have contains proprietary source code.
Mitch
J Sloan wrote:
> Just a sanity check, are you using the
> current (errata) red hat gcc?
>
> Just asking since 2.96 is all I use, and
> the -aa kernels are completely stable
> here - do you have a test workload to
> allow me to try and duplicate your bug?
>
> Joe
>
Well, 7.1, 7,2 and 7.3 -
all running -aa compiled with latest errata gcc 2.96
Joe
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Mitch Sako wrote:
> I'm (re)installing all of the erratta now on a 7.2 machine. What RH are you
> running? Unfortunately, I don't have a non-proprietary testcase to give out
> because the one I have contains proprietary source code.
>
> Mitch
>
> J Sloan wrote:
>
> > Just a sanity check, are you using the
> > current (errata) red hat gcc?
> >
> > Just asking since 2.96 is all I use, and
> > the -aa kernels are completely stable
> > here - do you have a test workload to
> > allow me to try and duplicate your bug?
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>