offtopic, was Re: AMI megaraid performance (was: RE: Dell release of Redhat 7.2)
dirkw at rentec.com
Fri Nov 9 15:30:00 CST 2001
uppsss! what is that here? why the heck do you curse at SGI, it does good
work for the Open Source community, too. to my knowledge they never
claimed to use resembled Redhat kernels. In fact if you pull their
kernels from CVS, the releases are named 2.4.Y-preX-xfs, sounds more
like their kbd,io and xfs stuff is on top of Linus' kernels. the XFS
kernel is updated way more frequently than the Redhat kernel. with
every prerelease Linus is doing you find a couple of hours later in
the CVS tree this kernel with SGI's patches.
also, it doesn't have "several other things changed", they are just
different. in addition to all vendors like SuSE, RH and so on who
tend to do some things different compared to official releases as far
as bugfixes or drivers are concerned, we have now in addition two
rather different kernel branches (AC, Linus). just try to be fair here
also with the choice of words. the center of the world is not RedHat,
also if you are getting paid by them.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > The 2.4.9-12 kernel is the RedHat kernel that was released as
> > > a security
> > > update.
> > > The 2.4.14 kernel is the linus kernel. The filesystem is XFS
> > > on both versions.
> That is NOT a Red Hat kernel, if you are using XFS. It's an SGI XFS
> which is versioned by SGI to resemble the version of the Red Hat kernel.
> it has a different VM and has several other things changed; it's
> therefore incorrect
> to use SGI XFS's kernel for performance measurement and then attributing
> that to the
> real Red Hat Linux kernel.
> I know SGI often tries to project the appearance of being the Red Hat
> Linux kernel
> so that people think they benefit from Red Hat's testing and bugfixes;
this is very shallow thinking. if you would have ever used SGI's
kernel on cutting edge DELL hw, you would have realized that it
doesn't come with the right drivers... like broadcom or percraid.
so they would never dare claiming using RH kernels as a code basis.
concering your point RedHat's "testing and bugfixes" there pops up
a question in my head: why don't i find all those (e.g. 196 patches
in redhat-7.2-kernel-2.4.7-2.spec) in official releases (official=kernel.org)?
SuSE isn't much different, in 7.3 they have 183 kernel patches for their
2.4.10 , I guess it applies also to other distributors.
> however this is a false
> use of the Red Hat brand. (The changes made by SGI to the Red Hat Linux
> kernel codebase,
> such as using known broken compilers, basically invalidate all testing).
> Arjan van de Ven
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge