Thanks much, I have in the past compiled my own but thought I would check.&nbsp; A big THANKS to whoever provides them...<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Akemi Yagi &lt;<a href="mailto:amyagi@gmail.com">amyagi@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Tom Bishop &lt;<a href="mailto:bishoptf@gmail.com">bishoptf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>

&gt; OK, so I need to bring up a new vm and was wondering what the state of vm<br>
&gt; kernels for centos. I have read this <a href="http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2189" target="_blank">http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2189</a><br>
&gt; about the tick divider but it wasn&#39;t clear what the best step forward is for<br>
&gt; centos 5.1 was, i usually ran with the clocksource=pit option and it looked<br>
&gt; like that and the divider option caused a problem. &nbsp;I have in the past<br>
&gt; compiled my own but was wondering what others were now doing, thanks in<br>
&gt; advance 8-)<br>
<br>
</div></div>Thanks to Tru, kernel-vm is all up-to-date and you can find it here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://people.centos.org/tru/kernel-vm/" target="_blank">http://people.centos.org/tru/kernel-vm/</a><br>
<br>
and yes, using the clocksource=pit option should not be an issue with<br>
these kernels.<br>
<br>
Akemi<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS@centos.org">CentOS@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>