Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:42:20 -0600 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Gigabit NIC question. |
| |
Jes Sorensen writes: > >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> writes: > > Richard> Jes Sorensen writes: > >> 2.0.36 reliawhat?? If you are looking for GigE performance you are > >> likely to want SMP and SMP in 2.0.36 is absolutely not realiable. > > Richard> There's a strong perception that 2.0.36 is robust (even > Richard> though SMP isn't). I see people pushing for XYZ driver to be > Richard> added to 2.0.3x for this reason. I assume if Kim is willing > Richard> to back-port the GigE driver to 2.0.36, the option of > Richard> forward-porting some other driver was also considered. > > True, from a driver maintainers point of view I'd just note that I > have no interest in adding 2.0.x compat patches to for instance the > acenic driver.
Yeah, but that won't stop people from wanting it :-)
> Richard> As for SMP "requirements": perhaps Kim has a 1 GHz Athalon > Richard> and figures that should do nicely :-) > > Hmmm I thought I read a mail from Alan a few minutes ago stating > that 2.2.x didn't even support the Athlon?
I can assure you that 2.2.15 works very nicely on an Athalon. I was running it on our server when the 2.3.99 kernels had appalling VM performance. Even MTRR support (the K7 has Intel-compatible MTRRs while the K6 were AMD-specific; the K7 broke an assumption in the MTRR driver which was later fixed in 2.2.x and 2.3.x kernels) works.
I think what Alan meant is that support for K7-specific features is not available. So the kernel just treats it as a lowly PIII.
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |