The Official HWF Kernel Repo

Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

The brand-spanking-new 2.6.32 is built and syncing to kernel.hardwareforums.com. It's a new stable branch, meaning there are a lot of changes, new features, and lots more supported hardware. There are some significant performance improvements with the new scheduler that I'm sure you'll appreciate, as well as a few Ext4 performance regressions.


This kernel also introduces Intel ATOM-specific optimizations. Since this processor is gaining in popularity every day, this will be the last HWF kernel build featuring the i586 family of CPUs. Afterwards, it will be supplanted by ATOM-optimized kernel builds.
 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

2.6.31.7 is built and syncing to kernel.hardwareforums.com. This is a bugfix build, and as such, it is recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF 2.6.31.x kernel.

If this is your first HWF kernel, I would recommend trying 2.6.32 instead, which has some hefty performance improvements over previous kernels.

 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

2.6.31.8 and 2.6.32.1 are built and synced to kernel.hardwareforums.com. These are both bugfix builds (mainly against bugs in ext4) and as such, it is recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF kernel.

If this is your first HWF kernel, I would recommend trying 2.6.32.1, which has some hefty performance improvements over previous kernels.

 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

2.6.31.9 and 2.6.32.2 are built and syncing to kernel.hardwareforums.com. These are both bugfix builds containing many fixes, and as such, it is recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF kernel.

If this is your first HWF kernel, I would recommend trying 2.6.32.2, which has some hefty performance improvements over previous kernels.

 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

2.6.31.11 and 2.6.32.3 are built and syncing to kernel.hardwareforums.com. These are both bugfix builds containing many fixes, and as such, it is recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF kernel.

If this is your first HWF kernel, I would recommend trying 2.6.32.3, which has some hefty performance improvements over previous kernels.

 
scars230 said:
Mr. Trend
Why did you choose CFQ as IO Schduler ?
Anticipatory would be better for game servers ?
Click to expand...
CFQ is best for responsive desktop usage, which is the primary focus of these kernels. Also, whether or not Anticipatory would be better for game server largely depends on the game.
 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

Once again, a new kernel has been posted. 2.6.31.12 and 2.6.32.4 are built and syncing to kernel.hardwareforums.com. These are both bugfix builds containing many fixes, and as such, it is recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF kernel.

If this is your first HWF kernel, I would recommend trying 2.6.32.4, which has some hefty performance improvements over previous builds.

 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

Immediately on the heels of 2.6.32.4, we have 2.6.32.5. This is a bugfix build with many scheduler-related fixes and more. As usual, it's recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF kernel.

 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

Believe it or not, we already have yet another bugfix release, 2.6.32.6, which is currently syncing with the server. As usual, it's recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF kernel.

 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

Holy crap, another bugfix release! 2.6.32.7 is currently syncing with the server. As usual, it's recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF kernel.

 
I was about to start a similar project till I found yours. Really touching and great work so far. But I want 64Bit kernel. Is there any plan to offer 64Bit kernels?
 
nekys said:
I was about to start a similar project till I found yours. Really touching and great work so far. But I want 64Bit kernel. Is there any plan to offer 64Bit kernels?
Click to expand...
I'm actually building 64-bit kernels for a different project, specifically, patched with GRSec/PAX and hardware-optimized. But I've been thinking seriously about building x86_64 desktop kernels also, since it makes a lot of sense. 64-bit is much more desirable on a desktop presently than it was when I started rolling these. We also have more storage capacity on the server, which was a limitation at the time. The biggest bottleneck at this point is my free time; the initial kernel configuration for each CPU profile is what takes the largest investment.

So in summary, it is something I've been considering, and I'll probably do it. When exactly I can't say, but getting rolling is the hard part. After that, it's just another script running in the background.
 
Kernel 2.6.30.5 available

What's that I hear you ask? No new bugfix builds against 2.6.32? Au contraire! 2.6.32.9 is built and currently syncing with the server. If you're running a HWF kernel, upgrade or you [strike]will die in a horrible way[/strike] might run into bugs that were already fixed.

 
Mr. Trend,
What are your views about BFS Scheduler ?

. . . I believe you should start compiling kernels defaulting to BFS schedulers.
What say ?
 
scars230 said:
Mr. Trend,
What are your views about BFS Scheduler ?

. . . I believe you should start compiling kernels defaulting to BFS schedulers.
What say ?
Click to expand...
I'm not applying any patches at this point, just compiling from vanilla sources.

BFS is a very simplistic scheduler, and it probably works pretty well in many desktop conditions. However, thanks to the help of the x264 creator, CFS has actually improved substantially since BFS was written. These days, doing something like encoding a movie or compiling kernels on my quad core fully utilizes all four cores with nearly zero idle slack. Also, some apps like WINE do not work well with BFS. So even if I was applying third party patches to the HWF kernels, it would not be an easy choice to just ditch the default Linux scheduler for one that's far less well-tested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top