From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "Gerd v. Egidy" <gerd.von.egidy@intra2net.com>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@csd.uu.se>,
Andreas Steinmetz <ast@domdv.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.34-pre1
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:40:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060818044036.GA19344@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200608180141.20040.gerd.von.egidy@intra2net.com>
Hi Gerd,
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:41:19AM +0200, Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> first thank you for continuing work for 2.4, our company still relies on it
> for a lot of machines.
>
> > By this time, those people obviously know that they will have more
> > and more problems getting 2.4 to run reliably on fresh new hardware.
>
> Yes, we've already experienced problems with new hw. We could solve most of
> the stuff with some vendor supplied patches. But now we got performance
> problems with ICH7 SATA performance: a disk does only about 11MB/s on 2.4
> with all 2.4 patches from Jeff applied while we get about 40MB/s on 2.6.16.
> Backporting the libata changes done between 2.6.15 (I think that is about the
> same codebase as the current 2.4 stuff) and 2.6.16 seems like a big task.
>
> So my question is: what is your policy on new or enhanced drivers (not just
> new pciids)?
Generally, new drivers should be avoided. The main reason is very simple :
most of the kernel developers spend their time on 2.6. They know they don't
need to touch 2.4 much because what is in it does not change a lot.
Maintaining drivers takes a lot of time, needs a lot of testing and
feedback from the users. And of course, I don't have enough knowledge
to maintain all drivers myself ! So if a completely new driver which does
not overlap at all with anything else is proposed AND a maintainer swears
he's ready to support it for the whole 2.4 life, I might not be opposed
to merge it. But I will not ask current maintainers to support new drivers
in their areas.
In your case (SATA), you have a driver which is working, but performance
is not as good as on 2.6. Well, performance is a good reason to evaluate
2.6. Use 2.4 on the most critical machines, and 2.6 on those which can
suffer more common updates. Your feedback will help 2.6 developers a lot.
Of course, if you find real bugs in 2.4 SATA I'm OK to apply the fixes,
even more if the same fix is already in 2.6.
BTW, I have already looked at the 2.6 SATA code some time ago, and I
noticed that it has evolved very quickly since 2.4 got resynced. So
even if one would like to resync with current 2.6 code, I'm not sure
it would be easy at all. If you manage to provide a backport, we can
ask Jeff if agrees to merge it, but I'm not sure he will accept since
he said that current SATA in 2.4 was his last update.
BTW, another solution for you if you need performance on 2.4 might
be to try an add-on SATA controller of different brand. Those cards
are very cheap and will only use one PCI slot, which is OK if you
don't need it for anything else.
> Kind regards,
>
> Gerd
Regards,
Willy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-18 4:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-16 22:36 Linux 2.4.34-pre1 Willy Tarreau
2006-08-16 23:54 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-17 5:16 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-17 6:48 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-08-17 8:35 ` Andreas Steinmetz
2006-08-17 8:50 ` Mikael Pettersson
2006-08-17 12:48 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-17 20:43 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-17 23:41 ` Gerd v. Egidy
2006-08-18 4:40 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2006-08-21 0:56 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-17 9:06 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-17 9:16 ` Andreas Steinmetz
2006-08-18 23:25 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-19 1:20 ` Grant Coady
2006-08-20 17:27 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-19 4:45 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-21 0:35 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-21 0:41 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-21 1:07 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-17 8:37 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-17 9:12 ` Thomas Voegtle
2006-08-18 22:48 ` Solar Designer
2006-08-18 23:11 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-18 23:27 ` Solar Designer
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-08-17 7:57 Chris Rankin
2006-08-17 9:16 ` Thomas Backlund
2006-08-18 4:47 ` Willy Tarreau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060818044036.GA19344@1wt.eu \
--to=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=ast@domdv.de \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=gerd.von.egidy@intra2net.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikpe@csd.uu.se \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox