[CentOS] question on firewire support and centosplus

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Sun Oct 2 18:43:31 UTC 2005

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

>    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.

  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the CentOS mailing list