On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, God wrote:
> What version of the 2.4.x kernels is actually stable enough to
> use? I ask this because I see 2.4.2, but then the 2.4.2ac7 fix
> which from what I have read on here, is a pretty important
> patch. Is 2.4.2 or 2.4.1 stable enough?
>
> I don't run a large site, but what I do have, I think would
> benefit very much from the improved 2.4.x kernel over what I
> have mostly have now, of 2.2.16's and 2.2.18's (if not for the
> the network stuff alone).
It all depends on exactly what you are doing.
I suspect that for most "normal" situations, 2.4 should be
pretty stable.
There are, however, a few areas where we still have bugs:
- loop device driver (fixed in -ac?)
- highmem (fixed in -ac?)
- SMP (detection, fixed ??)
- IPX
- NFS (fixed in -ac?)
I suspect we'll be finding a few more over the next weeks,
but if you're just using your machine as a webserver and
are not using anything special (ie. just ext2, tcp/ip, etc.)
2.4 should be solid.
regards,
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
