|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > April 2006 > kernel compile prompts
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
kernel compile prompts
|
|
| linxlvr 2006-04-08, 7:12 pm |
| I was wondering if someone could suggest what I should select.
Compiling kernel 2/6/16, debian Sarge 3.1
* IO Schedulers
*
Anticipatory I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_AS) [Y/n/m/?] y
Deadline I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_DEADLINE) [Y/n/m/?] y
CFQ I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_CFQ) [Y/n/m/?] y
Default I/O scheduler
> 1. Anticipatory (DEFAULT_AS) (NEW)
2. Deadline (DEFAULT_DEADLINE) (NEW)
3. CFQ (DEFAULT_CFQ) (NEW)
4. No-op (DEFAULT_NOOP) (NEW)
choice[1-4?]: ?
Select the I/O scheduler which will be used by default for all
block devices.
Default I/O scheduler
> 1. Anticipatory (DEFAULT_AS) (NEW)
2. Deadline (DEFAULT_DEADLINE) (NEW)
3. CFQ (DEFAULT_CFQ) (NEW)
4. No-op (DEFAULT_NOOP) (NEW)
choice[1-4?]:
TYIA.
--
dw
| |
| Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) 2006-04-08, 7:12 pm |
| On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0400, linxlvr wrote:
> I was wondering if someone could suggest what I should select.
> Compiling kernel 2/6/16, debian Sarge 3.1
> * IO Schedulers
> *
> Anticipatory I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_AS) [Y/n/m/?] y
> [...]
This is the one. Since it's the default, I guess the kernel developers
think that it's the best overall for most people. I'm using it, and it
seems to *double* disk performance (over 2.4.x) at times.
I'm considering recompiling the kernel without the other I/O schedulers to
create a leaner kernel.
HTH
Sumo
| |
| linxlvr 2006-04-08, 7:12 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:15:03 +0000, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0400, linxlvr wrote:
>
>
> This is the one. Since it's the default, I guess the kernel developers
> think that it's the best overall for most people. I'm using it, and it
> seems to *double* disk performance (over 2.4.x) at times.
>
> I'm considering recompiling the kernel without the other I/O schedulers to
> create a leaner kernel.
>
> HTH
> Sumo
TY for your help and your email also. I am trying again, so you know, and
you were quite right about the xtables going unnoticed, and thus not even
prompting a whole bunch of things.
--
dw
| |
| linxlvr 2006-04-08, 7:12 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:56:37 -0400, linxlvr wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:15:03 +0000, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
> wrote:
>
> TY for your help and your email also. I am trying again, so you know, and
> you were quite right about the xtables going unnoticed, and thus not even
> prompting a whole bunch of things.
Well, the firewall works, but no programs using internet have access. Try
try again. :-)
--
dw
| |
| linxlvr 2006-04-08, 7:12 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:15:03 +0000, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0400, linxlvr wrote:
>
>
> This is the one. Since it's the default, I guess the kernel developers
> think that it's the best overall for most people. I'm using it, and it
> seems to *double* disk performance (over 2.4.x) at times.
>
> I'm considering recompiling the kernel without the other I/O schedulers to
> create a leaner kernel.
>
> HTH
> Sumo
Thanks for the second email, that finally resolved enough of my issues to
make me happy. Tomorrow, the sound card! :-)
--
dw
|
|
|
|
|