When upstream released 5.1, everybody wanted to test a new kernel parameter that could adjust the system clock rate at boot time to something else than the standard 1000Hz clock rate. A lot of testings has been done (thanks to Akemi Yagi for her great work) and you can see the results here : http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2189
As you can read at the bottom of the comments, it seems it was a typo in the official RH Release Notes : you'd have to read divider= and *NOT* tick_divider= ! (see http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/release-notes/as-x86/RELEASE-NOTES-U1-x86-...)
It seems so to work with the correct kernel parameter and so there is no need to build a kernel-vm for CentOS 5.1 guests .. (it's still needed for example for 4.x ..)
Keep on reading the comments on bugs.centos.org for further informations ... I assume that upstream release notes will be corrected to reflect the real parameter
Fabian Arrotin wrote:
As you can read at the bottom of the comments, it seems it was a typo in the official RH Release Notes : you'd have to read divider= and *NOT* tick_divider= ! (see http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/release-notes/as-x86/RELEASE-NOTES-U1-x86-...)
Would still be good to see some benchmarks done with and without this option against the stock and -vm kernels.
- KB
On Jan 2, 2008 3:43 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Fabian Arrotin wrote:
As you can read at the bottom of the comments, it seems it was a typo in the official RH Release Notes : you'd have to read divider= and *NOT* tick_divider= ! (see http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/release-notes/as-x86/RELEASE-NOTES-U1-x86-...)
Would still be good to see some benchmarks done with and without this option against the stock and -vm kernels.
OK, then, I have added my test result
http://bugs.centos.org/file_download.php?file_id=413&type=bug
to the bug report:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2189
Akemi
-
Akemi Yagi -
Fabian Arrotin -
Karanbir Singh