Hello,
I'll make this quick as I know how much traffic this list gets.
What version of the 2.4.x kernels is actually stable enough to use? I
ask this because I see 2.4.2, but then the 2.4.2ac7 fix which from what I
have read on here, is a pretty important patch. Is 2.4.2 or 2.4.1 stable
enough?
I don't run a large site, but what I do have, I think would
benefit very much from the improved 2.4.x kernel over what I have mostly
have now, of 2.2.16's and 2.2.18's (if not for the the network stuff
alone).
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, God wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'll make this quick as I know how much traffic this list gets.
>
> What version of the 2.4.x kernels is actually stable enough to use?
I have been running 2.4.1 on 12 SMP machines with minimal problems.
All these machines are SCSI (no IDE is even enabled in the BIOS).
SCSI is aic7xxx and BusLogic. Network cards, 3c59x, eepro100, pcnet32.
All the machines are daily hard-at-word. One is our main name-server.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, God wrote:
> What version of the 2.4.x kernels is actually stable enough to
> use? I ask this because I see 2.4.2, but then the 2.4.2ac7 fix
> which from what I have read on here, is a pretty important
> patch. Is 2.4.2 or 2.4.1 stable enough?
>
> I don't run a large site, but what I do have, I think would
> benefit very much from the improved 2.4.x kernel over what I
> have mostly have now, of 2.2.16's and 2.2.18's (if not for the
> the network stuff alone).
It all depends on exactly what you are doing.
I suspect that for most "normal" situations, 2.4 should be
pretty stable.
There are, however, a few areas where we still have bugs:
- loop device driver (fixed in -ac?)
- highmem (fixed in -ac?)
- SMP (detection, fixed ??)
- IPX
- NFS (fixed in -ac?)
I suspect we'll be finding a few more over the next weeks,
but if you're just using your machine as a webserver and
are not using anything special (ie. just ext2, tcp/ip, etc.)
2.4 should be solid.
regards,
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
> What version of the 2.4.x kernels is actually stable enough to use? I
> ask this because I see 2.4.2, but then the 2.4.2ac7 fix which from what I
> have read on here, is a pretty important patch. Is 2.4.2 or 2.4.1 stable
> enough?
2.4.1 definitely isnt. 2.4.2 doesnt seem too bad for many users. In fact for
lots of people its running quite nicely. Its by no means as stable as 2.2.18
tho