The 4 processor rs6k smp I've been testing does quite well as it is. My
theory is that we're loosing a lot of performance on the htab contention
(if I can prove it, I'll create separate htabs per processor). If you
isolate any performance bottlenecks with SMP please let meknow.
} I don't want th
I don't want to put them into 2.2 until they're nice and healthy in 2.3.
As it is, I'm behind on my 2.2.x work since I've been getting 2.3.x working
:)
Keep in mind, the structure of the kernel changed a great deal from 2.0 ->
2.3 so things will have to be quite different. In fact, the bebox chan
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Tom Rini wrote:
> Oh Lord. BeBox support in 2.2.x (more likely 2.3.x/2.4.0) would be neat,
> and will happen, but is a ways off. First, he's using the 2.0.32
> bootdisks from 980610. Second, BeBoxen have been mostly coaxed into
> booting UP under 2.2.x. Tho I think they're
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 1999, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> > Hello people,
> >
> > Just a status report to indicate that I've successully got the
> > debian distribution (ppc) up and running on my BeBox (2x133)
> > using the 2.0.32 scsi kernel
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> Just a status report to indicate that I've successully got the
> debian distribution (ppc) up and running on my BeBox (2x133)
> using the 2.0.32 scsi kernel from the be-linux site. Boots over
> the net, mounts
Hello people,
Just a status report to indicate that I've successully got the
debian distribution (ppc) up and running on my BeBox (2x133)
using the 2.0.32 scsi kernel from the be-linux site. Boots over
the net, mounts root locally. I'm now looking to help out with
t
6 matches
Mail list logo
