Tested 2.6.1[-mm#] and 2.6.5[-aa#]:
inexplicables crashes, mouse, NFS etc.,
on 2-3 of our 8 Linux machines (0.1-6 years old),
not usable for production, need five 9 (99.999).
I don't have logs, always switched back to 2.4.25.
Starting with AT&T UNIX SVR2 (1986, rock solid),
later Linux 2.0, then 2.2, then 2.4,
2.4.17 was the 1st veritable stable 2.4 kernel.
2.4.25 had an uptime >=33 days before changing
all machines to 2.4.26. Stable since 1-3 days.
Feedback only and
kind regards
Mario Vanoni, _not_ in lkml!
PS The standalone 9th M$ machine at job,
boot each morning,
some days needs 1-3 reboots on the same day.
From the view point five 9 a piece of jewellery.
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Mario Vanoni wrote:
> Tested 2.6.1[-mm#] and 2.6.5[-aa#]:
> inexplicables crashes, mouse, NFS etc.,
> on 2-3 of our 8 Linux machines (0.1-6 years old),
> not usable for production, need five 9 (99.999).
> I don't have logs, always switched back to 2.4.25.
>
> Starting with AT&T UNIX SVR2 (1986, rock solid),
> later Linux 2.0, then 2.2, then 2.4,
> 2.4.17 was the 1st veritable stable 2.4 kernel.
> 2.4.25 had an uptime >=33 days before changing
> all machines to 2.4.26. Stable since 1-3 days.
>
> Feedback only and
> kind regards
Well, thank you for testing the 2.6 kernel at least, but as far as
bugreports/feedback, this one is found wanting. There is absolutely
nothing we can do to help you based on what you have provided and you may
as well have not posted.
Zwane