Memory Buffers

Seth Mos knuffie at
Fri Nov 8 09:57:00 CST 2002

At 09:14 8-11-2002 -0500, Aaron Smith wrote:
>It was a nightmare.  The 2.4.14 kernel, however, contained a complete
>re-write (or so I was told)of the VM and once that kernel was installed,

That is correct.

>         From what I understand, the later kernels saw a move BACK to the VM
>system that existed in 2.4.9.  Is that the case?   If so, I'll have none


>of THAT thank you very much.  I've already been burned by it.  From what
>I was able to gather from the Celebrity DeathMatch on the kernel
>developer's list, Rik's VM was in 2.4.9, and Andrea's VM was in 2.4.14.

Correct, 2.4.9-ac10 contained Rik's VM with patches that were not accepted 
by linus at the time.
For 2.4.10 the new Andrea VM went in which took untill 2.4.14 to stabalize 
in a decent fashion.
2.4.10 wasn't exactly wonderfull either.

>So what's in 2.4.17 that makes IT so darned special?  Is it just the
>same code from 2.4.9 or is it perhaps a blending of the two to make
>something better?

It's Andrea's VM. Nothing special. It was the first release of a 2.4 kernel 
by Marcello. And he seems to be a lot better in releasing kernels that are 
not broken when released or cause filesystem corruption (2.4.15).

So anything after and including 2.4.17 can be rated as production use ready.

2.4.19 would still be better ofcourse :-)


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

More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list