Re: Referring what kernel-images to build to the technical committee?
On Thursday 26 April 2001 16:38, Ilya Martynov wrote:
> RC> There is no need for a MTTR specific kernel. MTTR is not really
> RC> needed as there is no software written which is unable to run
> RC> without it. Our goal here should be compatibility with software.
> RC> MTTR can increase speed significantly in certain situations, but
> RC> there's lots of other ways of doing that for less effort which we
> RC> aren't supporting. MTTR can allow you to work around broken
> RC> hardware. But we can't provide enough kernels to support all
> RC> combinations of broken hardware (I am sure that I could find a
> RC> list of a dozen boolean options which are all needed to be in one
> RC> state or another for various broken hardware - we can't provide
> RC> 2^12 kernels).
> I think you are wrong about 'MTTR is not really needed'. One good
> example is aviplay (player for avi files). It perfomance is seriously
> affected by MTTR option. This fact is mentioned in its docs and I've
> seen myself *significant* difference in its perfomance when I've
> compiled kernel with MTTR option. Probably perfomance of simular
> programs will be affected too.
I've played many AVI files without MTRR support. It will still work, just a
bit slower. If programs won't run at all (as in the case of MMX and 3DNow!)
then we should compile different kernels. If they just don't run as fast
then we can let the users compile their own kernels.
If you want maximum video speed you want to compile your own kernel with AGP
and DRI support etc...
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page