Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:23:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from geyser.gps.caltech.edu (geyser.gps.caltech.edu [131.215.65.56]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j314NugT032298 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:23:57 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by geyser.gps.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2540D9E3A7B for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:23:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from geyser.gps.caltech.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (geyser.gps.caltech.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24705-09 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:23:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.123.100] (adsl-66-51-208-100.dslextreme.com [66.51.208.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by geyser.gps.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378D7D9E3A76 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:23:54 -0800 (PST) From: David Kewley Organization: Caltech ITS To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: RHEL 4 -- how build kernel with xfs? Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:23:53 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200503302123.56513.kewley@gps.caltech.edu> <200503311300.38901.kewley@gps.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200503312023.53290.kewley@gps.caltech.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/798/Thu Mar 31 01:54:41 2005 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gps.caltech.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 5212 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: kewley@gps.caltech.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 1601 Lines: 37 Net Llama! wrote on Thursday 31 March 2005 13:07: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, David Kewley wrote: > > A quick question for anyone who knows: Is 4kstacks still a problem for > > the xfs in kernel 2.6.11? If not, then at what kernel release did it > > stop being a problem? > > Funny you should ask, cause there was a thread on this just last week (or > maybe the week before, i forget). The general consensus is that 4k is ok > for light, low intensity (no NFS, LVM, etc) usage, but for anything high > volume, where uptime must be 5 9's, 8k is the safer bet. Now that you pointed me to it (thanks!), I found it: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/linux-xfs/2005-03/msg00047.html I think your summary is correct, but I'd add one BIG modification: 4kstacks only affects i386 (including e.g. i686) arches. For example, the arch I use, x86_64, still uses 8k stacks, so I only need to add CONFIG_XFS_FS. I've verified this to my satisfaction by looking at the RHEL4 kernel source, but also see Andi Kleen's post to the above thread: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/linux-xfs/2005-03/msg00078.html ----------------- ONE MORE question or set of questions. :) So now I've got my RHEL4 kernel source tree, which is based on 2.6.9 and appears to have no patches to xfs (with the possible exception of patches outside the xfs/ tree that affect xfs). Would it be advisable to just use this version, or to try to update the xfs kernel code in some way (replace the xfs/ tree with the 2.6.11 version? apply some patches?)? I see that the xfs patches kept coming in for 2.6.10 and 2.6.11. Thanks, David