From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: SCSI Disk layer performance Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:59:06 +0000 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040129185906.C11929@infradead.org> References: <1074720667.19927.384.camel@localhost.lnxi.com> <20040122135703.A11283@infradead.org> <4010FF56.2060806@cri74.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:27142 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266263AbUA2S7I (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:59:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4010FF56.2060806@cri74.org>; from fabien@cri74.org on Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:02:46PM +0100 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Fabien Salvi Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:02:46PM +0100, Fabien Salvi wrote: > > What kernel tree do you use? If you're looking for decent scsi > > performance use linux 2.6 or the SuSE/RH vendor trees. Stock Linux 2.4 > > is basically unusable for higher scsi loads in SMP enviroments. > > Can you give more details about this ? > > Instead of using vendor trees, is it possible to use specific and > validated patchs about this ? It's rather hard as there's a lot of them and they depend on each other. Doug Ledford sayd he's going to sort put it into the 2.4 BK repos at linux-scsi.bkbits.net one day, you could monitor it.