2650 troubles, was Okay, this is so not cool..
ryan at rentec.com
Thu Oct 16 11:04:01 CDT 2003
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Marc Schmitt wrote:
> > Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> >> first mistake, 2.4.xx kernels of kernel.org are not greatly tested.
> >> It's better to stay with latest kernel of your distribution.
> > Huh? Elaborate on "2.4.xx kernels of kernel.org are not greatly tested"
> > please, I'm interested in how you could come up with such a statement
> here it goes.
> kernels of kernel.org:
> - usually don't compile 100%
Usually? I haven't had a problem compiling stock kernel.org kernels. The
compile problems only comes in when you add patches which is to be
> - when is discovered a security or critical bug it is not released a new
> formal kernel.
Kernel.org provides patches/upgrades when security bugs are found. It has
been like that since the first kernels I've used (1.2.x )
> - it passes no test, only "guy's boot tests"
I have no knowledge about this one. So I can't really comment. The only
thing I could say is we're using our own compiled 2.4.18 kernel.org kernel
happily on ~300 machines here.
> with these notes, some kernel gurus recommend stay with distributions kernels.
> This is not new.
I'm not a kernel guru nor do I know any kernel guru who mentioned this, so
I'm staying out of this.
> Distribution kernels, before to be released, pass heavy stress tests. In Red Hat
> Linux, at least one week.
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge