Re: Debian stock 2.6 kernel for amd k6

[Anthony Tippett <atippett@sports-it.com>]

Horms,

Thanks for the reply.  I also am not really aware of the advantages of
having a k6 build but have seen, visually, some performance advantages to
using the 2.6 kernel.  I also have noticed that those performance gains
are more noticeable when using the specific builds rather than the i386
build (obviously taking advantage of new instruction sets).  

Thanks Debian team for all your hard work.


On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:54:33AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 01:35:39PM -0700, Anthony wrote:
> > howdy all,
> > 
> > I've used debian stable for most of my computers and have always used
> > the kernel-image-2.4.18-1-k6 package for all my k6 machines  I've
> > started to switch to testing/sarge and notice there was not a specific
> > k6 build for the 2.6 kernel.  Is the i386 kernel the correct one to use?
> > Is there a reason as to why there is not a specific k6 kernel in testing
> > as it is in testing?  I'm assuming that there are performance
> > advantages to using a kernel compiled with k6 instructions as opposed
> > to the i386.
> 
> Hi Anthony,
> 
> the 2.6 kernels in sarge/sid (2.6.7 and 2.6.8) do not have a k6 build.
> However the 2.4 kernels do (2.4.26 and 2.4.27). I was not involved in
> the decision not to include a k6 build for 2.6 so I can't comment on
> that. However, I can say that there is talk of adding some additional
> builds, particularly smp for all existing builds as well as p4,
> particularly p4-smp to take advantage of hyperthreading. That will not
> happen until sarge is out, however, input on what builds are useful is
> more than welcome. I would be particularly interested to hear if there
> are any real advantages in a k6 build for 2.6 (or 2.4) over any of the
> existing builds.
> 
> -- 
> Horms

-- 
Anthony Tippett
atippett@sports-it.com
Sports IT Software Developer
425 443 3152