[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Kernel 2.6.0-test2 vs 2.2.12 -- Some observations
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.077 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site