Why to upgrade the linux kernel?

jason andrade jason at dstc.edu.au
Mon Apr 22 17:00:01 CDT 2002


On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 Matt_Domsch at dell.com wrote:

> > IMHO it leads to
> > systems which are far more stable than any RedHat kernel release.  Not
> > to mention you can stay closer to the current Linux kernel than RedHat
> > allows.
> 
> IMHO, the Red Hat provided kernels are quite stable - we (and others) stress
> test them like you wouldn't believe.  There are advantages to building one
> yourself, but if you're not so inclined, the Red Hat kernels tend to be
> *more* stable than simply, say, the stock kernel from kernel.org.  (Red Hat
> kernel 2.4.9-31 is *far* more stable than kernel.org's 2.4.9 kernel.)  You
> can achieve the same level of stability by patching the whole thing up
> yourself, but that's why you're buying from Dell/Red Hat now, right?  :-)

i prefer to get a redhat kernel source and build my custom kernel from that.
it appears to give me the best of both worlds.

i.e  a kernel source rpm supplied by redhat.


o i then have a redhat kernel running on dell hardware which is tested/supported
  and patched beyond a vanilla kernel.
 

o i have a smaller/more reliable kernel due to tuning options when building

e.g

 932672 Apr 21 11:21 vmlinuz-2.4.18-0.22custom
 975103 Feb 26 23:18 vmlinuz-2.4.9-31
 890771 Apr 14 19:16 vmlinuz-2.4.9-31custom
1049060 Feb 26 23:08 vmlinuz-2.4.9-31smp

% du -sk /lib/modules
2956    2.4.18-0.22custom
27128   2.4.9-31
2740    2.4.9-31custom
28128   2.4.9-31smp


this lets me build some things in directly rather than as modules (e.g
SCSI) and remove a bunch of things that are either built in, or build
as modules, reducing the kernel size and the time to compile significantly.

regards,

-jason




More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list