On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 17:20 +0100, James Pearson wrote: > David Thompson wrote: > > Johnny Hughes wrote: > > > >>There is a centosplus kernel that has that errata ... it is version: > >>kernel-2.6.9-34.107.plus.c4 > >> > >>However ... if the only thing you need from the centosplus kernel is the > >>xfs ... you should use the normal (non-centosplus) kernel and the > >>kernel-xfs-module that matches it from here: > >> > >>http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/ > >> > >>or > >> > >>http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/x86_64/RPMS/ > >> > >>(That code is from SGI and has all the latest patches.) > > > > > > Do I understand from this that (for example) kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL- > > 0.1-2.i686.rpm contains xfs errata this is not present in (the centosplus) > > kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-34.107.plus.c4.i686.rpm? > Yes ... the upstream provider uses a 2.6.9 kernel (with some backported code). They also turn off several things (reiserfs, xfs, ntfs, etc.) The upstream provider does not update many things that they keep turned off, therefore when I turn on items in the CentOSPlus kernel, we are using 2.6.9 versions of those items. SGI has given us newer code, based on newer kernels, but designed to use with the 2.6.9-x kernel of the upstream provider. It is better than the CentOSPlus kernel code for XFS. In the future, starting with CentOS-4.4, the CentOSPlus kernel will not have xfs enabled and we will instead use the kernel-xfs-module. If I could get the reiserfs people to provide me with new (and integrated) kernel modules, I would use those as well. > Looking at the patch referenced in your original posting, it looks like > it is in the kernel-module-xfs code and not in the centosplus kernel code. > Correct ...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
