PDA

View Full Version : What kernel do you use?


Thetargos
18th July 2005, 06:57 AM
My apologies for the Gentoo-esque thread, but I've found out that many people other than me also use custom built kernels on Fedora.

Thetargos
18th July 2005, 06:58 AM
I'm currently using a 2.6.12-nitro3 kernel, but building a -nitro5 one :D

Thetargos
19th July 2005, 07:06 PM
Wow, apparently not many (only me??) fedoraforum.org regulars use custom kernels, interesting.

tejas
19th July 2005, 07:25 PM
I've never needed anything new in the kernel. And I'm not about to spend hours compiling and installing a new kernel for 1% improved performance

sueltraz
19th July 2005, 07:28 PM
I have compiled my own kernels in the past, but no longer do so. The return on investment simply wasn't worth it to me.

Thetargos
19th July 2005, 08:41 PM
To each their own, I've found quite the oppsite. Being stock kernels so much "multipurpose", they usually are "bloated" with lots of modules I don't need/want. That may not mean anything to some, since they only take a bit more space. However, I've seen that carefully tweaking my kernel can render my system more responsive (not necesarily improved performance, but certainly responsivenessI), and I've found some (rare) applications that simply don't like much stock kernels.

However this is the beauty of Linux, you are free as you please, you can use whatever kernel your distro comes with (be it whatever distro you like, even Gentoo!), and you are completely free to customize it to meet your needs/expectations. I'm certainly happy to have my system squeze every bit of performance it has to offer. I'm aware not everybody likes messing with their computers to that degree, but I do enjoy it. Plus the time I spend is not as high as I initially thought. I only started to build my own kernels way late in the game. I've been a user of Red Hat since Red Hat 5, going through all flavors there after (Ok, I skpped 7.0, I admit it!!), and it wasn't until way into Red Hat 9 that I started messing with the kernel, and I liked it.

Edit
Ohh, and I almost forget, if you want to get rid of the default rhgb which is nice, but grows old quick and is not themeable, you may want to install bootsplash, which requires kernel-space support, and you guessed it, you'd need to build a kernel with it, and believe me... Once you've toyed around with it, there is no looking back :D (if you haven't take a look at some LiveCD's from Gentoo or SuSE for examples of what you can do with it).

sueltraz
19th July 2005, 09:19 PM
I would be interested to see bootsplash used instead of rhgb...I mean, there really is no point to reinvent the wheel.

Thetargos
19th July 2005, 09:30 PM
It's a bit of a mess to setup, epecially in Fedora systems, but it requires support for one fundamental aspect which Fedora inherted from Red Hat: Intird (since the image(s) are to be stored in it, this has the side effect of fattening your inittrd, but if you strimmed down your kernel to only have what you actually use (in terms of hardware support, filesystems, and such), this should not take up too much. Besides pretty much every "supported" or official kenel patch (even Alan's) come with bootsplash already bult in, so it is only a matter of getting the userspace utilities and get to it!

bytesniper
19th July 2005, 09:35 PM
i mainly use stock kernels unless there is a specific reason to compile my own, especially as often as new ones come out. i completely agree with tejas... And I'm not about to spend hours compiling and installing a new kernel for 1% improved performance and ive never noticed enough performance increase to warrant the time it takes. *shrug* what you said is correct.. to each their own. :)

Thetargos
19th July 2005, 09:42 PM
*shrug* what you said is correct.. to each their own. :)
Indeed, this is all about freedom, isn't it? I'm not set out to "evangilize" people and try to convice them to use custom built and configured kernels, if they so choose to, then there's a specific need for it. In my case I like to stray ahead and explore whatever breakthroughs. I certainly seldom recommend my fellow Linuxers to use a custom built kernel. Basically, what reads my signature... If ain't broken, don't fix it... And most certainly if you don't know how to improve, don't go for it! ;)

bytesniper
19th July 2005, 09:50 PM
And most certainly if you don't know how to improve, don't go for it! i dont necessarily agree with that :)

<opinion>
ive found that usually the best way to learn a system is to mess around with it, break it, and then spend the time it takes to fix it. unless your taking about a production system then i say if you don't know it, go for it! One can learn a hell of a lot more in much less time with a broken system and google than asking a 1000 questions on these boards :D
</opinion>

Thetargos
19th July 2005, 09:54 PM
LOL

I would have to agree that yes... However you'd be surprised on how many people I know use Linux without being all of them über-computer-geeks. I'm very happy that they have started to mess with their systems to figure much of what's going on out, but I certainly wouldn't recommend them to use a custom kernel. Oddly enough the ones of us (me and my friends) who do use custom kernels like to stay in the cutting/bleeding edge side of things ;)

Edit
And from the looks of it, seldom come to the boards too, LOL.

I started coming again to these boards, more to the communty forums than the support ones, problem is that when I have problem I seldom get an answer, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

bytesniper
19th July 2005, 10:07 PM
I started coming again to these boards, more to the communty forums than the support ones, problem is that when I have problem I seldom get an answer, but that's the way it goes, I guess. funny you should mention that.. as of right now i have 765 posts... 2 of them are questions that i have asked... 0 is how many replies i've ever recieved *shrug* ... i guess if everyone found google this place would be pretty quiet :D

Thetargos
19th July 2005, 10:10 PM
Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I really like helping new users, but I find that thre are way too many answers already posted to those potential threads I would reply to... The communty forums suddenly appear more appealing to me :D

sueltraz
19th July 2005, 11:03 PM
It's a bit of a mess to setup, epecially in Fedora systems, but it requires support for one fundamental aspect which Fedora inherted from Red Hat: Intird (since the image(s) are to be stored in it, this has the side effect of fattening your inittrd, but if you strimmed down your kernel to only have what you actually use (in terms of hardware support, filesystems, and such), this should not take up too much. Besides pretty much every "supported" or official kenel patch (even Alan's) come with bootsplash already bult in, so it is only a matter of getting the userspace utilities and get to it!

But thing that I don't get is why they felt it necessary to write RHGB when bootsplash was already out there. It wouldn't that big of a chore for the developers to get bootsplash integrated into Fedora. Not only that, it doesn't require that X be started.

Thetargos
19th July 2005, 11:21 PM
Well, maybe redhat developers feel more comfortable working with X, not to mention that in the early days (back in Fedora 1) bootsplash was not very stable, and as such , tampering with such a critical aspect of your system as is the kernel, felt like not a good idea to Red Hat (presumably). Another thing is that bootsplash requires that you run a VGA console, which can get things messy, and at a minimum depth of 16-bits (though 32 can get messy), this contributes to not many folks implementing it. X based rhgb, in the other hand depend on your X drivers, which are much more robust and less prone to conflic with console drivers. In any case by now should be safe to assume that it is safe to implement bootsplash in grand-scale distros (heck, SuSE does that!!).

sueltraz
20th July 2005, 12:39 AM
SuSE using it is what really makes me wonder why Fedora doesn't try it out...take it for spin if you will.

Perhaps have it as an install option, you can pick RHGB (with a normal kernel) or bootsplash (with the appropriately patched kernel). My personal opinion is that bootsplash adds a polished feel to the distro.

EDIT: Or as another option, provide an RPM that will replace the normal kernel with a bootsplash enabled one. Also have the RPM turn off RHGB (just to limit confusion and possible problems). Possibly an extra's package.

Thetargos
20th July 2005, 07:02 AM
SuSE using it is what really makes me wonder why Fedora doesn't try it out...take it for spin if you will.

Perhaps have it as an install option, you can pick RHGB (with a normal kernel) or bootsplash (with the appropriately patched kernel). My personal opinion is that bootsplash adds a polished feel to the distro.

EDIT: Or as another option, provide an RPM that will replace the normal kernel with a bootsplash enabled one. Also have the RPM turn off RHGB (just to limit confusion and possible problems). Possibly an extra's package.
No need for that. If you know how bootsplash works, you probably know that you can disable and enable it from userspace ;)

So there is actually no need to have two kernels, just one (with bootsplash enabled) and the userpace tools, and the config files in order, so using the tools (which can be improved a lot, mind you) they could make yet another tool (or substitute the "official" ones altogether) which would let you choose which "face" would you rather have... That would be a something. They should also allow rhgb to be themeable and personalize-able (would be a BIG plus).

bitrain
20th July 2005, 10:31 AM
Back in the fc3 days (ok, only a few weeks back) I had my custom compiled kernel for a while, but it didn't give me much of a speed boost, and if I wanted updates for it, I had to recompile, another hour wasted. Now here on fc4 I still have the 2.6.11 kernel, but after my vacation I switch to the 2.6.12 (or 13 if it is out) and hope everything keeps working.

<opinion>
ive found that usually the best way to learn a system is to mess around with it, break it, and then spend the time it takes to fix it. unless your taking about a production system then i say if you don't know it, go for it! One can learn a hell of a lot more in much less time with a broken system and google than asking a 1000 questions on these boards
</opinion>I agree with that, I have spend much time trying to fix my soundblaster 7.1, but it failed so I brought it back and got a better card somewhere else. Then trying to fix my wireless (which failed the first time too, no drivers available) but my slower wireless I have now works.
But this forum is a good place for newbies who don't want to search google and try things for hours and hours.

Thetargos
20th July 2005, 10:48 AM
Well, I usually can get to actually do stuff while I (re)compile my kernel: read e-mail, surf the web, listen to music and maybe do some actual work in OOo (granted, as long as I don't use Calc for some complicated stuff) and usually the kernel finishes before I even notice (have to keep my eyes on gkrellm to check for CPU usage drop, so I check the terminal. Then just induce a little break in my work, reboot and happily keep on working. So the hour is not wasted, just invested, and I actually got to get things done...

As for the time it takes to build a kernel in your system, to me seems to be too long for a tweaked kernel, in my box (Sempron 2400+ [333 MHz FSB], 512Mb PC-2700 RAM, ASUS nFroce2 MoBo, Seagate ST380023A 80 Gb [hda] HDD) it usually takes somewhere in beteween 20 minutes (left the computer alone, in init 3) and 35 minutes (when I'm actually working) to build a whole kernel + modules, when it is the kernel image only I'm re-building, it takes like 2 minutes!. Then again, I really trimed down the sources to configure only what I need or what I forsee to be needing in the near future, everything else, is disabled (as it should, if you do not intend to use it).

Keep in mind that such a kernel is for your machine and your manchine only, you can broaden it to include support for a few other systems (not too many more, or you'd end up with a way too robust kernel, which breaks the whole purpose of having a custom kernel), and still have quite low compilation times. To have a rescue kernel, you better use a pre-compiled, generic x86 kernel in a self contained environment to be as compatible as it can with as much hardware support as it can, etc. But for that I'd better be using a liveCD distro like System Rescue CD (http://www.sysresccd.org/)

As for your soundcard, I assume you are taliking about an SB-Live! 7.1 (or SB-Live! 24-bits), which is not based off the same chipset as a regular Live!/Audigy card, unlike the Audigy LS (which is actually the same chipset as the Live! 24-bits). Creative did a real good job at using successful product name to sell utter crap (Audigy LS and Live! 24-bits). You are much better off using an Audigy 2 Value OEM card, than that other card.

bitrain
20th July 2005, 11:02 AM
As for the time it takes to build a kernel in your system, to me seems to be too long for a tweaked kernel, in my box (Sempron 2400+ [333 MHz FSB], 512Mb PC-2700 RAM, ASUS nFroce2 MoBo, Seagate ST380023A 80 Gb [hda] HDD) it usually takes somewhere in beteween 20 minutes (left the computer alone, in init 3) and 35 minutes (when I'm actually working) to build a whole kernel + modules, when it is the kernel image only I'm re-building, it takes like 2 minutes!. 20 minutes on a sempron 2400+, my pc is about 1/3 of your speed, I only have half the ram. 1 hour seems correct then. I didn't strip it completely because it was around the time of my soundcard/wireless problems.
You don't want to know how long it took on the celeron 700 MHz with only 128 MB ram on my (now previous) school....

As for your soundcard, I assume you are taliking about an SB-Live! 7.1 (or SB-Live! 24-bits), which is not based off the same chipset as a regular Live!/Audigy card, unlike the Audigy LS (which is actually the same chipset as the Live! 24-bits). Creative did a real good job at using successful product name to sell utter crap (Audigy LS and Live! 24-bits). You are much better off using an Audigy 2 Value OEM card, than that other card.From the things I heard afterwards of the SB Live 7.1 it is indeed a piece of crap. I had the SB Live 7.1 yes, if I had the 5.1 (which I initially wanted, but they didn't had it anymore) everything would have worked. The audigy is to expensive for me. My current Sweex 5.1 card costed me about 15 euro (= 12 dollar?)

Thetargos
20th July 2005, 11:09 AM
Yes, I do know how long it would have taken you to build a kernel in your 700 machine, I've put my home server (Athlon classic 700 intially 128 Mb RAM [now 256]) and it took it about hour and a half... true... main subsystem to suffer is processor speed and then RAM. Just for the record and as a suggestion if anyone else wants to try and build kernel by themselves, if you don't have a very fast machine, do it from an init 3 terminal, it will finish in the fraction of the time it would take from within an X session in GNOME or KDE!!!

What's the chipset on your soundcard? I'm trying to compile a list of harware mixing supporting ALSA cards which are not based in the EMU10K1/2 chipsets (i.e, anything but Creative). I'm rally interested, since those are viable solutions for folks that don't want to spend too much money on a good FULLY functional card for Linux.

tanaka
21st July 2005, 08:20 AM
I use a stock kernel as I have no idea how and why to make a custom :D

Fresno Photos on Instagram - Lere - Shivpuri Photos on Instagram