2003-05-06 07:07:17

by Gabe Foobar

Subject: The 2.6 kernel, expected to be released by late next month

eWeek:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1053277,00.asp

"The 2.6 kernel, expected to be released by late next month,
will move Linux further into the enterprise, though it will
still have a ways to go to meet the demands of the largest
enterprise database applications, said Tim Witham, lab
director for Open Source Development Lab Inc., here last week."

interesting. is it possible?

2003-05-06 12:20:05

by Alan

Subject: Re: The 2.6 kernel, expected to be released by late next month

On Maw, 2003-05-06 at 08:19, Gabe Foobar wrote:
> eWeek:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1053277,00.asp
>
> "The 2.6 kernel, expected to be released by late next month,
> will move Linux further into the enterprise, though it will
> still have a ways to go to meet the demands of the largest
> enterprise database applications, said Tim Witham, lab
> director for Open Source Development Lab Inc., here last week."
>
> interesting. is it possible?

Wildly improbable. 2.6-test maybe, but there are way too many bugs
left including data corruption.

2003-05-06 13:04:11

by Colin Paul Adams

Subject: Re: The 2.6 kernel, expected to be released by late next month

>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:

Alan> Wildly improbable. 2.6-test maybe, but there are way too
Alan> many bugs left including data corruption.

What sort of data corruption?

I've just ordered a dual Xeon machine, so I was planning to run 2.5.x
on it, to maximize throughput, but this sounds worrying. perhaps I'd
better stick to 2.4.n?
--
Colin Paul Adams
Preston Lancashire

2003-05-06 13:42:14

by Alan

Subject: Re: The 2.6 kernel, expected to be released by late next month

On Maw, 2003-05-06 at 14:16, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
> >>>>> "Alan" == Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Alan> Wildly improbable. 2.6-test maybe, but there are way too
> Alan> many bugs left including data corruption.
>
> What sort of data corruption?
>
> I've just ordered a dual Xeon machine, so I was planning to run 2.5.x
> on it, to maximize throughput, but this sounds worrying. perhaps I'd
> better stick to 2.4.n?

At least as of 2.5.68 floppy corrupts data, and there have been odd (but
not horrifying) problems with IDE that Bart may now have fixed. After
that its a case of going through the noise, figuring out which other
minor corruption reports come from the tty bug, vm races, user error,
bad ram and so on.

I run 2.5.x continually on some non critical boxes. I do have backups
but even on 2.4 nothing says my disk wont suddenely fail anyway.

A lot of these are corner cases, and crossing off items one at a time,
not "it eats lots of computers"