On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:40:37AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> So the quandry is: Where should I go from here? So far,
> 2.4.18-SGI_XFS_1.1 seems to have solved the performance issue I was
> seeing, but has old LVM and 3w-xxxxx drivers which I'd like to
> upgrade. It looks like 2.4.19 has LVM 1.0.3 and the correct 3w-xxxx
> driver version already. So I could compile up my own kernel, but the
> only XFS patch I see for 2.4.19 is a CVS snapshot from last week. I'm
> leary of using a snapshot for an integral part of the kernel, but
> there doesn't seem to be a 1.1 patch for 2.4.19 (and the 2.4.18 patch
> seems to be XFS 1.1-PR2).
As a constant follower of the XFS CVS tree -- and a fellow user of a
3ware card (although I have never used LVM) -- I have found that the XFS
CVS tree is very acceptably stable. The SGI team does a pretty good job
of testing changes before committing them into CVS. Admittedly CVS
snapshots do not have the kind of stability blessing that releases get,
but you might be better off with an unpatched CVS snapshot than with a
kernel built with a combination of hand-patches that may not be as
widely tested.
Plus of course you get the benefit of being an early beneficiary of the
code cleanups and minor bugfixes and optimizations that the SGI team
puts in. Indeed these are not as "rock solid tested" as the release
kernels, but I believe they're well tested enough.
If you need that "stability guarantee" you probably want to stick with a
released kernel, otherwise the CVS seems to be pretty good.
--> Jijo
--
Federico Sevilla III : http://jijo.free.net.ph
Network Administrator : The Leather Collection, Inc.
GnuPG Key ID : 0x93B746BE
|