On 12 Jun 2000, Jason Quigley wrote:
> BTW, somebody mentioned problems with disk performance under 2.2.15 and that
> I should stay with 2.2.14.
>
> I am interested in getting LVM working on my system and the only 2.2.x
> system that will be patched will be 2.2.15+.
>
> Does anybody know if this
BTW, somebody mentioned problems with disk performance under 2.2.15 and that
I should stay with 2.2.14.
I am interested in getting LVM working on my system and the only 2.2.x
system that will be patched will be 2.2.15+.
Does anybody know if this person was using the wrong orifice to communicate?
Mark wrote:
> Hmm, ok, but the networks file is stock, set up by the debian install. I
> have upgraded the kernel from 2.0.38 to 2.2.15 - would this be the "route"
> of the problem?
:) Yup.
If I am not entirely mistaken, the 2.2.x kernel doesn't need the route
entry as it sets routes automatical
On 12/06/00 at 19:37 Corey Popelier spake the following magic words:
>Umm, two aspects I can think of:
>
>(1) in kernel 2.2.x -net isn't required at all iirc, so route add
>127.0.0.1 lo should be enough.
>(2) I would have thought the route should be 127.0.0.0 not 127.0.0.1
>... my /etc/init.d/netwo
Umm, two aspects I can think of:
(1) in kernel 2.2.x -net isn't required at all iirc, so route add
127.0.0.1 lo should be enough.
(2) I would have thought the route should be 127.0.0.0 not 127.0.0.1
... my /etc/init.d/network says 127.0.0.0 but don't take that for gospel.
Cheers,
Corey Popelier
5 matches
Mail list logo
