[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
    Hey Valdis

    >> Requirements for me to put a kernel on a given server would be:
    >> * supports the hardware
    > The problem is that "supports" is often a fuzzy jello-like substance you
    > try to nail to a tree. You mention the R8169 and e1000 drivers - if they
    > bring the device up, but have issues under corner cases, is that "supports"
    > or not?

    Oh agreed, this is all very "use case" specific. I'm making all of the
    following statements based on the specific hardware we use, and assuming
    'stability' based on the kernel/hardware passing a number of tests.

    >> * no security holes [in options I enable]
    > Similarly for "no security holes". At *BEST*, you'll get "no *known* *major*
    > security holes", unless you feel like auditing the entire source tree. There's
    > a whole slew of bugs that we can't even agree if they *are* security bugs or
    > just plain bugs - see Linus's rant on the subject a few months back.

    Agreed. No *known* *major* security holes is fine here.

    >> * works reliably, under load/stress.
    > And you win the trifecta - I don't think we've *ever* shipped a Linux kernel
    > that worked reliably under the proper "beat on the scheduler/VM corner case"
    > load/stress testing. Again, the best you can hope for is "doesn't fall over
    > under non-pathological non-corner-case loads when sufficient resources are
    > available so the kernel has a fighting chance". Doing 'make -j100' on a
    > single Core2 Duo is gonna be painful, no matter what.

    Well the typical tests outlined above are:

    * random size file creation/deletion, lots of files
    * memory allocation, and freeing up again
    * stressing the CPU a bit with one process, then
    forking 25-50 processes to (trivially) test scheduler
    * testing network I/O by rapidly/concurrently fetching
    many small files via HTTP, and a few large ones.

    The end goal is simply to get a server which doesn't crash under
    "normal" operating conditions. The bugs I referred to in
    e1000/forcedeth and r8169 either stop it PXE booting (a requirement for
    our environment!) or can *easily* be made to oops / stop working.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-22 11:01    [W:0.022 / U:9.260 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site