Re: Still errors in Ultra 5 installation

[Steve Dunham <dunham@cps.msu.edu>]

Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:

> Steve Dunham <dunham@cps.msu.edu> writes:
> 
> > The egcs64 in potato is flakey, the one is slink might be flakey, and
> > the one in Red Hat works (it's the one in slink with some additional
> > patches, the one in potato is based on a much newer egcs).  The
> > kernel-image package mentioned above was compiled with the Red Hat
> > egcs.  (When I say flakey, I mean that the resulting kernel may slow
> > down and eventually die when doing intensive stuff like compiles.)
> 
> Yurgh.  Oh well -- i have your stock 2.2.9 kernel working perfectly.
> Ok sure, I could probably save 200k of non-swappable RAM by compiling
> my own kernel.

> I must say, X11 performance on my Ultra 5 (Rage-64) is rather
> disappointing.  Am I wrong in assuming that either a 64-bit X server,
> or other misc. optimizations in the linux kernel etc etc. should
> eventually lead to, um, I dunno, a 30% speed improvement?  Or at least
> better interactive performance?  I note in particular that the X
> server tends to really bog down under load...

I doubt 64-bit code will do anything other than slow it down more.
(Note that the kernel uses a special memory model, without this memory
model it ran very slowly.)

What kernel are you using?  If you compiled it yourself, or didn't use
the 2.2.9-2 kernel from potato, then the slowdowns/pauses in X are
probably because of a bad code in the kernel due to a buggy egcs64.
(The 2.2.9-1 kernel was compiled with the buggy egcs64.)


Steve
dunham@cse.msu.edu