From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:06:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:06:24 -0400 Received: from ucu-105-116.ucu.uu.nl ([131.211.105.116]:9363 "EHLO ronald.bitfreak.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:06:13 -0400 Subject: Re: Linux scalability? From: Ronald Bultje To: "reiser.angus" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <990174642.6347.1.camel@adslgw> In-Reply-To: <990173560.6346.0.camel@adslgw> <990174686.12881.18.camel@tux.bitfreak.net> <990174642.6347.1.camel@adslgw> Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: Evolution/0.10 (Preview Release) Date: 18 May 2001 11:05:27 +0200 Message-Id: <990176755.7159.20.camel@tux.bitfreak.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18 May 2001 10:30:40 +0200, reiser.angus wrote: > TUX does not exist on 2.2 kernel > They use a RedHat 7.0 with a 2.4 kernel patched by RedHat (with TUX, > zerocopy, etc..) I am pretty sure the C'T article mentioned that TUX did use a 2.2.x kernel - so it does exist. How else could they make a 2.2.x-kernel based TUX vs. 2.4-test-kernel based TUX comparison? Too bad the website doesn't mention the kernel number. -- Ronald