The Official HWF Kernel Repo

[Anti-Trend]

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.

• Get HWF kernels here
• 2.6.31.11 Changelog
• 2.6.32.3 Changelog

[scars230]

Mr. Trend
Why did you choose CFQ as IO Schduler ?
Anticipatory would be better for game servers ?

[Anti-Trend]

Originally Posted by scars230

Mr. Trend
Why did you choose CFQ as IO Schduler ?
Anticipatory would be better for game servers ?

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.

[Anti-Trend]

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.

• Get HWF kernels here
• 2.6.32.4 Changelog
• 2.6.31.12 Changelog

[Anti-Trend]

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.

• Get HWF kernels here
• 2.6.32.5 Changelog

[Anti-Trend]

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.

• Get HWF kernels here
• 2.6.32.6 Changelog

[Anti-Trend]

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.

• Get HWF kernels here
• 2.6.32.7 Changelog

[Anti-Trend]

2.6.32.8 is built and currently syncing with the server. As usual, it's recommended to upgrade if you're running a HWF kernel.

• Get HWF kernels here
• 2.6.32.8 Changelog

[nekys]

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?

[Anti-Trend]

Originally Posted by nekys

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?

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.

[Anti-Trend]

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 will die in a horrible way might run into bugs that were already fixed.

• Click here to save your precious soul download the kernel
• 2.6.32.9 Changelog

[sabashuali]

Originally Posted by Anti-Trend

.....upgrade or you will die in a horrible way .....

Originally Posted by Anti-Trend

Click here to save your precious soul

That is a bit Microsoft init?

Thanks for the update!

[scars230]

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

. . . I believe you should start compiling kernels defaulting to BFS schedulers.
What say ?

[Anti-Trend]

Originally Posted by scars230

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

. . . I believe you should start compiling kernels defaulting to BFS schedulers.
What say ?

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.

[scars230]

Is it any manner possible to be able to choose schedulers at boot ?