You are not logged in.

#1 2005-06-14 17:13:48

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

cko vs ck

just wondering what the advantage of either is.  I think I'd like to throw together a custom kernel, which I haven't bothered with in like a year....

right now, I'm leaning towards ck with added swsup2 and possibly inotify (isn't this in ck? I thought it was)

any opinions/whatever from the "i recompile my kernel hourly" gurus would be appretiated

*looks at iphitus and dibble*

PS one day I'm going to have a conversation with one of you guys like this:
* what kernel version/patchset do you run?
* cvs

Offline

#2 2005-06-14 17:37:59

z4ziggy
Member
From: Israel
Registered: 2004-03-29
Posts: 573
Website

Re: cko vs ck

from my understanding ck is more updated, while cko is derived from ck but contains more patches (reiser4, shfs, etc). i would recommend going for the ck unless u really want something with the cko.

Offline

#3 2005-06-14 17:45:33

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: cko vs ck

I would be interested in knowing if you notice any differences with whichever patchset you choose.

Dusty

Offline

#4 2005-06-14 17:56:11

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: cko vs ck

Dusty wrote:

I would be interested in knowing if you notice any differences with whichever patchset you choose.

Dusty

yeah i'm iffy on performance differences... I basically say that performance updates are not going to change my typing speed or mouse click speed... and 99% of what people use a computer for is user interaction...

considering it takes like 1 second to click a button (yeah, I'm just rounding) and the response time may change, in theory, from 0.002 seconds to 0.0018 seconds, I'm not going to notice a difference...

the main thing I want to add in is swsup2 and possibly supermount

Offline

#5 2005-06-14 18:07:47

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,837

Re: cko vs ck

I've got -ck8 and -cko5 kernels on my system at the moment, phrak. Subjectively, I have noticed inceased responsiveness with both compared to vanilla. I won't be doing any measurements on this - not that bothered. I'm using vesa-tng and shfs from cko, and I'll probably do something with inotify (not in ck, btw) once I figure out what to do with it  :?

I do it because I can, because I might learn something, and because dibble's PKGBUILD makes it so easy  big_smile

Offline

#6 2005-06-14 18:43:31

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: cko vs ck

tomk wrote:

I'm using vesa-tng and shfs from cko

I'd be interested to know how

vesa-tng is simply for fbsplash (or gensplash, whatever it is), right?

I may be short sited, but can't see any real good use for shfs that I couldn't use nfs or smbfs for... can you enlighten me?

Offline

#7 2005-06-14 19:24:45

dtw
Forum Fellow
From: London, UK
Registered: 2004-08-03
Posts: 4,428
Website

Re: cko vs ck

as far as i can tell:

all of cko "speed" advantages come straight from it's ck base

cko basically adds a few big patches to ck: reiser4, soft suspend2, supermount, fbsplash (+tng buffer)

I use reiser4, softsus and fbsplash, so rather than hack those into ck i just use cko, even tho it is updated less often; the cko maintainer readily admits he doesn't have time to fully maintain the patchset.

what ever you decide please check out the "popular patches and patchsets" wiki page and post anything you might think is useful big_smile

Offline

#8 2005-06-14 22:42:00

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: cko vs ck

CKO is simply CK with added features, such as SHFS, Reiser4, Vesafb-tng, fbsplash, and numerous other updates.

If the latest CKO release isnt up to date with the latest CK release, its perfectly safe to update it with the CK incremental patches.

so see what your needs are, chances are if you want software suspend, you'd be better going with -cko, as it offers software suspend as an addon patch.

Offline

#9 2005-06-15 00:43:39

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,837

Re: cko vs ck

phrakture wrote:
tomk wrote:

I'm using vesa-tng and shfs from cko

I'd be interested to know how

I read back my post, and it appears I may have given the incorrect impression that I put a lot of thought into this. For the record, I didn't. I have a good, stable, custom 2.6.11.10 kernel for "everyday" use, so having nothing better to do, I applied the patches and made oldconfig. With cko, a few [NEW] options presented themselves, and I arbitrarily selected vesa-tng, shfs, and inotify - figuring (not for the first time) that I would deal with any consequences as they arose.

So now I have "video=blaah" instead of "vga=uurgh" for my cko kernel, and "fbsplash" on my to-do-whenever list, along with inotify. shfs is simply a novelty, which so far I have found slightly useful for accessing an unshared desktop on my network. I expect the novelty will wear off soon enough.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB