Hi folks:
Firewire was not supported in 4.0 due to the upstream provider not including it. Is it in 4.1? Or is it still out of the mainline upstream kernel provider? What about centosplus? Centosplus has been listed as unsupported. I presume this means that they are/were one-off builds with missing functionality (e.g. xfs, etc), and are not updated. Is this the case? I am looking at this for an important server, and I want to make sure that if we switch to the centosplus kernel that we haven't messed up the rest of the package support, or major kernel bugfixes.
The reason I am curious about firewire is that I would like to use the firewire interface rather than the USB interface for our backup drives. Its not much faster, just fewer context switches (e.g. lower server load).
Thanks.
Joe
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:05, Joe Landman wrote:
Hi folks:
Firewire was not supported in 4.0 due to the upstream provider not including it. Is it in 4.1? Or is it still out of the mainline upstream kernel provider? What about centosplus? Centosplus has been listed as unsupported. I presume this means that they are/were one-off builds with missing functionality (e.g. xfs, etc), and are not updated. Is this the case? I am looking at this for an important server, and I want to make sure that if we switch to the centosplus kernel that we haven't messed up the rest of the package support, or major kernel bugfixes.
The unsupported kernel just re-enables the things that are present in fedora kernels (at least...) but were turned off in RHEL. The kernel is rebuilt on updates so you don't lose anything by using it.
The reason I am curious about firewire is that I would like to use the firewire interface rather than the USB interface for our backup drives. Its not much faster, just fewer context switches (e.g. lower server load).
I'm using firewire on an FC3 box and am less than thrilled with the stability. The recent update to 2.6.13.x on FC4 looks promising but I haven't tested enough to be sure. Unless you have to use firewire now, wait till you have at least a 2.6.13 kernel. The box I'm using only has USB 1.0 ports so that's not a reasonable alternative.
Hi Lee:
Thanks for the pointers. I have FC4 on another box with the USB2 connected to it. I am getting about 35 MB/s reads (VIA chipset), and about 15-20 MB/s writes. The context switching is horrible, and drives the processor load way up.
I will install the new Centosplus RPMs for the kernel. I presume I can do it via yum and adding it into the repos. Thanks.
joe
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:05, Joe Landman wrote:
Hi folks:
Firewire was not supported in 4.0 due to the upstream provider not including it. Is it in 4.1? Or is it still out of the mainline upstream kernel provider? What about centosplus? Centosplus has been listed as unsupported. I presume this means that they are/were one-off builds with missing functionality (e.g. xfs, etc), and are not updated. Is this the case? I am looking at this for an important server, and I want to make sure that if we switch to the centosplus kernel that we haven't messed up the rest of the package support, or major kernel bugfixes.
The unsupported kernel just re-enables the things that are present in fedora kernels (at least...) but were turned off in RHEL. The kernel is rebuilt on updates so you don't lose anything by using it.
The reason I am curious about firewire is that I would like to use the firewire interface rather than the USB interface for our backup drives. Its not much faster, just fewer context switches (e.g. lower server load).
I'm using firewire on an FC3 box and am less than thrilled with the stability. The recent update to 2.6.13.x on FC4 looks promising but I haven't tested enough to be sure. Unless you have to use firewire now, wait till you have at least a 2.6.13 kernel. The box I'm using only has USB 1.0 ports so that's not a reasonable alternative.
-
Joe Landman -
Les Mikesell