HLFS-Testing status

Robert Baker bobb at netslyder.net
Wed Sep 27 18:19:33 PDT 2006

Yeah I ended up going with Reiser on those systems.Never the less thats 
a good point, hopefully the grsec team will have 2.6.18 patches sorted 
out and ready to go soon. What I am wondering is what you guys want. I 
am still making the changes I outlined for my own use. But I am happy to 
help in any way I can.

Kevin Day wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Robert Baker <bobb at netslyder.net> wrote:
>> 2. Again I am running 2.6.17.x in a few places on those HLFS boxes, and
>> no issues have come out of it.  I have been, and still remain open to
>> suggestions on the matter myself.
> If you intend to stick with the 2.6.17 series, I suggest backporting
> some of the ext3 patches done in the 2.6.18. In particular:
> http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=20acaa18d0c002fec180956f87adeb3f11f635a6 
> a 20% degradation is a pretty serious performance hit. At least, I am
> of the opinion that losing 20% of a systems performance where all data
> is stored (or might be stored) is rather serious.
> There are no other serious problems with 2.6.17 that I am aware of.
> And with the new features in the 2.6.18 that allows for better
> debugging for locks:
> http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=fbb9ce9530fd9b66096d5187fa6a115d16d9746c 
> It makes the 2.6.18 kernel tasty for the development hlfs.
[This E-mail scanned for viruses courtesy of Netslyder, Inc.(http://www.netslyder.net)]

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list