Re: Can 2 CPU motherboard run not-SMP kernel?
Thanks to you all for answering! Good news then, it seems as SMP is
not that critical... LINUX is really GREAT! Please, let me know if any of
you remembers of motherboards that it is better stay far from.
Nicola Bernardelli <nbern@mail.protos.it>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use <n.bern@mail.protos.it> for messages from any kind of
robot, such as mailing lists. From that address no autoresponse
messages will return even when I'm not at home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Jeff Noxon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 1997 at 05:18:10PM -0200, Nicola Bernardelli wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:50:02 -0700
> > > From: Philippe Troin <phil@fifi.org>
> > > Subject: Re: 2 CPU servers
> > >
> > > -cut--
> > > 2.0.31-pre7 seems to be working ok (no deadlocks).
> > > 2.0.30 or 2.0.29 with the deadlock-patch 6 works fine too.
> > > --cut--
> >
> > Suppose that after buying a 2 CPU motherboard you find that with some I/O
> > intensive application there are deadlocks, would a kernel compiled with no
> > SMP run on that motherboard?
>
> Yes. In that case you just have an idle CPU.
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Benedikt Eric Heinen wrote:
> Yes, no problem with that. I still have the old Debian kernel image as a
> backup in my lilo.conf, all other kernels here are SMP (even the second
> single CPU machine I had ran the SMP kernel, so I could use the identical
> kernel image on both machines -- by now both machines here are DualPPros
> working fine).
On 10 Sep 1997, Dale Martin wrote:
> That will work fine. I have had a vary stable SMP system, doing heavy
> I/O, using 2.0.14. It was in 2.0.15 that there was some
> reorganization of the interrupt code that started the deadlock
> problems. (2.0.30 with no patches would deadlock on me after less
> than an hour with my normal workload running, just as a datapoint.
> With deadlock patch 5 I had one lockup in a few weeks.) I have also
> heard that 2.1.51 is stable under SMP, but only from one person, and I
> have not tried it myself yet.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: