lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Linux-2.2.0 (pre1)
Dave Wreski writes:
> > > I did not have a single crash/malfunction w/2.0.36 in accumulated
> > > >600 days of uptime, some machines heavily loaded. I can't claim this
> > > for other OS'es, and I won't change it.
> >
> > 2.0.36 hasn't been out for more than 600 days. So which version
> > are you really running?
>
> Sounds like multiple machines, all of which adding up to 600 days.
>
> Dave

More to the point, the 2.0.x series is there to be the
ultra-stable well-tested version; however, it's clear that the
focus of development has shifted away from there (although Alan
Cox's continued maintenance of that kernel series is an excellent
thing).

I certainly wouldn't expect any admin who is concerned about
stability and continuous uptime to jump right in to 2.2, if only
because 2.2 isn't really out yet, and to play with the 2.2pre
kernels you're probably looking at several reboots per week just
to test the new prerelease versions.

By all means stick with 2.0 if it's working -- but you should
also be planning to upgrade to 2.2 (or some later version)
eventually. The 2.1 kernels really are faster -- as much as 15%
faster for some things in my tests, and as solid as 2.0 for at
least the light usage I give it.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.133 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site