* [dpdk-dev] glibc 2.1
@ 2013-11-21 18:25 Michael Quicquaro
2013-11-22 9:42 ` Richardson, Bruce
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Quicquaro @ 2013-11-21 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev
Hello all,
I have built dpdk (and pktgen-dpdk) on a couple RHEL 6.4 servers. This
distribution comes with glibc 2.12
I have read that glibc 2.7 is needed for coreset() functionality. My
testing, at the moment, only requires one cpu core.
I assume that upgrading to glibc 2.7 would probably break many of the
executables on this system.
The build seemed to work fine.
Do you think that there are any adverse effects of using a dpdk that was
built with glibc 2.1 in this case?
- Mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] glibc 2.1
2013-11-21 18:25 [dpdk-dev] glibc 2.1 Michael Quicquaro
@ 2013-11-22 9:42 ` Richardson, Bruce
2013-11-22 15:57 ` Michael Quicquaro
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richardson, Bruce @ 2013-11-22 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Quicquaro, dev
The Intel DPDK should work fine on RHEL 6.4. There should be no need to update your glibc, since this is subversion 12 (> 7), rather than 1.2.
Regards,
/Bruce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Michael Quicquaro
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:26 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] glibc 2.1
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have built dpdk (and pktgen-dpdk) on a couple RHEL 6.4 servers. This
> distribution comes with glibc 2.12
>
> I have read that glibc 2.7 is needed for coreset() functionality. My testing,
> at the moment, only requires one cpu core.
>
> I assume that upgrading to glibc 2.7 would probably break many of the
> executables on this system.
>
> The build seemed to work fine.
>
> Do you think that there are any adverse effects of using a dpdk that was
> built with glibc 2.1 in this case?
>
> - Mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] glibc 2.1
2013-11-22 9:42 ` Richardson, Bruce
@ 2013-11-22 15:57 ` Michael Quicquaro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Quicquaro @ 2013-11-22 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richardson, Bruce; +Cc: dev
Right, thanks. I had a little brain fart.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Richardson, Bruce <
bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> The Intel DPDK should work fine on RHEL 6.4. There should be no need to
> update your glibc, since this is subversion 12 (> 7), rather than 1.2.
> Regards,
> /Bruce
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Michael Quicquaro
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:26 PM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] glibc 2.1
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have built dpdk (and pktgen-dpdk) on a couple RHEL 6.4 servers. This
> > distribution comes with glibc 2.12
> >
> > I have read that glibc 2.7 is needed for coreset() functionality. My
> testing,
> > at the moment, only requires one cpu core.
> >
> > I assume that upgrading to glibc 2.7 would probably break many of the
> > executables on this system.
> >
> > The build seemed to work fine.
> >
> > Do you think that there are any adverse effects of using a dpdk that was
> > built with glibc 2.1 in this case?
> >
> > - Mike
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-11-22 15:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-11-21 18:25 [dpdk-dev] glibc 2.1 Michael Quicquaro
2013-11-22 9:42 ` Richardson, Bruce
2013-11-22 15:57 ` Michael Quicquaro
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).