[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Need 2.4.9-benh0 snapshot or diff

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 03:41:08PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 08:44:04AM -0800, Anthony Lau wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Did a really stupid thing and rsync'd away my working
> > 2.4.9-benh0 directory and turned it into a 2.4.14-pre5-ben0
> > directory.
> > 
> > It wouldn't be too bad if 2.4.14 was usable on my machine
> > (PowerMac4400/200MHz 604e, 96MB RAM) but it's constantly
> > swapping, swapping appears to be slower than in 2.4.9, and
> > system is constantly "stuttering" (unlike 2.4.9 which
> > "paused" only when massively swapping).
> > 
> > Luckily I still have a working 2.4.9-benh0 kernel, but
> > would like to have the source, too.
> then you better archive it when you sync it, benh's or any other rsync
> tree for that matter does not guarentee existence even 5 seconds after
> you finish the rsync, once a new revision is pushed the old source is
> gone forever.
> for benh trees i recommend doing a clean sync, renaming it to the
> date you synced like so:
> linux-2.4.XXpreYY-bh20001102
> and changing the Makefile EXTRAVERSION to match.
> when you want to update it cp -a the entire tree to something else,
> rsync and update the versions again.
> this way you will always know what version you are really running, and
> what date it came from, -benh0 means nothing as it never ever changes,
> the only useful version number there is for benh trees is the current
> date (and even time in some cases).

I had a copy, but in a maniacal fit of HD cleaning, I nuked it. D'oh!

I understand that -benh0 means nothing, but I figured just about any
snapshot (or diff of a snapshot vs. vanilla 2.4.9) would do.

I guess I will have to wait and see if 2.4.14-pre6 is better since
Linus Torvald wrote that he had fixed the OOM-killer. I know that
the snapshot of 2.4.14-pre5 I have appears to kill processes that
I want up, but were idling.  Very annoying when mutt or an X-shell
suddenly quit because you were surfing the web with Mozilla and
the kernel was swapping like mad (96MB phys RAM, 256MB VM).


Reply to: