Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Kernel 2.6.0-test2 vs 2.2.12 -- Some observations | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 08 Aug 2003 13:16:30 +0100 |
| |
On Iau, 2003-08-07 at 18:23, J.C. Wren wrote: > For reasons unknown, whereas 2.2.12 picked up the values for how much memory > we have stuffed into a fake BIOS block, 2.6.0-test2 does not (nor did > 2.5.69). I have to set a mem=7744k into the boot params. Anything more, and > I get kernel paging faults at startup. I'm unclear why this is, but since it > can be worked around at the moment, I can let it lay.
2.5.x/2.6 (and 2.4) use E820 memory sizing before E801 and earlier systems. Make sure your E820 tables are right I guess.
> I have not run hdparm on the drives, but e2fsck coming up on a dirty > partition is amazingly slow on 2.6.0-test2. On a 32MB CF card with 25% usage > (about 300 files), it takes less than 10 seconds under 2.2.12. On > 2.6.0-test2, I'm seeing on the order of 40+ seconds. Long enough, in fact, > that the watchdog that makes sure the system has booted into the application > is timing out and punting the system.
You bluecat probably sets umask by default if its designed to keep latency low. So hdparm -u1 /dev/hda first.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |