[ale] Kernel comparison: Web serving on 2.4 and 2.6
Stephan Uphoff
ups at tree.com
Sat Feb 14 14:15:43 EST 2004
You might want to check the filesystems created while running
2.6 and 2.4. (tune2fs -l device)
Adding a -v to mke2fs won't hurt either.
Maybe you just need to specify the blocksize for mke2fs.
( -b 1024 )
To repeat the questions - only the kernel is different.
Everything else down to the used filesystems / directories
is the same ?
Stephan
> Here is how I create the fs
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=fs.img bs=1024k count=32
> losetup /dev/loop1 ./fs.img
> mke2fs -m0 -i 1024 /dev/loop1
> mount /dev/loop1 ./fs
> cp -dpvR ../template/* ./fs
> umount ./fs
> losetup -d /dev/loop1
> gzip -9 fs.img
>
>
> On Sat, 2004-02-14 at 12:55, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
> > Chris Fowler wrote:
> > > I've experienced something weird on 2.6.
> > >
> > > We use a loopback device to create a filesystem for our embedded
> > > software. When I'm on 2.4 the image is created fine with ample free
> > > space on the ext2 fs. When I use 2.6 as the script is doing cp -dpvR
> > > ../template/* root/ it seems to run out of space on the image. The cp
> > > command can never finished. This problem has killed my plans on moving
> > > to 2.6 anytime soon.
> >
> > Are you using the same userland tools on 2.4 and 2.6 ?
> > Are you creating the loopback device on the same filesystem?
> > Take a look at the different filesystem layouts created by running
> > newfs on 2.4 and 2.6.
> > You probably have to specify some sane parameters for newfs if the
> > defaults no longer work for you.
> >
> >
> > Stephan
>
>
More information about the Ale
mailing list