[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Still Considering Debian - But Stuck!



Fred Whipple said on Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:24:24PM -0500:
> I see that Debian 3.0r2 includes a nicely aged (like fine cheese) Linux 
> 2.2 kernel.  While I'm certain the aging process only makes its flavour 
> stronger and more delectable, I'm afraid it's going to choke at the 
> thought of 10,000 threads.  Say nothing of 20,000.  Now I imagine it's 
> not so difficult to simply compile a recent 2.4 (2.5?) kernel and go 
> from there.  Is this fair?  Or would you suppose that the current stable 
> Debian is too old in other areas to properly handle kernel 2.4?
 
You can either build your own 2.4 kernel, or use one of the pre-packaged 2.4
kernels.  They work, they just aren't the default.

They do not have the O(1) scheduler, though.

> Would anyone be able to identify exactly what that re-working was, and 
> conjecture if they think it can be done under 3.0r2?  For that matter, 
> would I at that point be running so much new technology that I may as 
> well be running an unstable distribution of Debian?
 
The largest problem with running unstable (IMHO) is that you don't get security
updates.  Running unstable on the open internet is somewhat dangerous.

> Finally, while I'm messing around with the kernel, I'd have to include 
> support for ext3fs.  In our environment, journaling is not an option, 
> it's a base requirement.  Of course replacing the kernel would pretty 
> much give me kernel-level support for it.  From that point, how 
> complicated is it to get the rest of the tools to play nicely with 
> ext3fs?  I'd imagine that a large set of tools would need to be 
> replaced, including e2fsck, mount, umount, etc.

Nope.  To use ext3, you just need an appropriate kernel.  The ext2 utils can
turn the journal on for you once you're running a kernel with ext3 support.

I use Debian stable with 2.4 kernels and a couple of things from backports.org,
and it works well in a server capacity.

However, the workload I'm supporting is not Java or threads, so YMMV, of
course.

M

Attachment: pgpD4wFth2q47.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: