Re: Compiling under AMD64 fails

Hi Peter!

Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> Well, try 2.4.34 and tell me if it works for you. Then we can
> interpolate!
>  =20
Sorry for the complaining!

2.4.34pre compiles flawlessly under AMD64.

Maybe you should remove the "pre" suffix to encourage precautious people=20
to use it. :-)

Thank you very much.

We will share our experiances with endb.

<OFF TOPIC>
Backgroud:
We are performing a study on cheap linux SAN structures. We will test=20
most of the combinations
of DRBD, (X)NDB, iSCSI, ATAoE with Software-RAID, OCFS2, NFS and maybe=20
openGFS.
The motivation for our analysis is the paper
http://www.linux-magazin.de/heft_abo/ausgaben/2006/07/block_spirale?speci=
al=3DStorage&category=3D13791
</OFF TOPIC>

NDB below Software-RAID gives very promising performance results. The=20
only problem is the stability of NDB
in case of network trouble. We are optimistic that enbd is more robust=20
by design.

If you like to contribute to this performance study your are welcome. We=20
will publish the results of our study under the GPL.

Best Regards,

Volker




--=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
   inqbus it-consulting      +49 ( 341 )  5643800
   Dr.  Volker Jaenisch      http://www.inqbus.de
   Herlo=DFsohnstr.    12      0 4 1 5 5    Leipzig
   N  O  T -  F =C4 L L E      +49 ( 170 )  3113748
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D