Why to upgrade the linux kernel?

Seth Mos knuffie at xs4all.nl
Tue Apr 23 02:58:00 CDT 2002

At 14:54 22-4-2002 -0500, Matt_Domsch at dell.com wrote:
>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?  :-)

 From experience I can tell that the standard kernels from kernel.org tend 
to die pretty fast under moderate load. The IO performance for databases 
and such is also quite a lot better and balanced.

I also noted that when running Bonnie via ssh over a dialup link, the speed 
of the link influenced the disk benchmark. That is something that should 
not happen. This was with 2.4.10 from kernel.org

The Red Hat Linux kernels do not show this "weird" behaviour.

Since the box died with 2.4.10 in a matter of hours I am not really 
inclined to try/use the kernel.org kernels on this box anymore. This might 
have to do more with the

It might just be your lucky day, if you only knew.

More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list