Re: Choosing which 2.4 kernel tree to use for OldWorld
On 14 Aug, this message from Mike Fedyk echoed through cyberspace:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
>> On 13 Aug, this message from Mike Fedyk echoed through cyberspace:
>> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 09:25:29AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
>> > Let me ask this question also, but for oldworld machines, specifically,
>> > 7200, 6500, and oldworld g3.
>> >
>> > Will kernel.org ppc 2.4 kernels be ok for these systems? The systems I
>> > would be running would mostly be headless routers, file & print servers, and such.
>>
>>
>> Either kernel.org 2.2 tree, or the bk or benh 2.4 trees. 2.4 kernel.org
>> isn't ready yet.
>>
>> If you want to keep your servers running quietly in a corner without
>> touching them, 2.2 might be your best bet. Since you will not need all
>> the fancy new hardware support in 2.4, 2.2 is your best stable solution.
>> It's a bit slower than 2.4, but that shouldn't matter for your use.
>>
> For the machines that I *really* need to humm away, and keep working I'll
> use 2.2.
>
> For 2.4, which tree breaks the least? Hopefully, there is a tree that will
> supply a bootable kernel that doesn't break core functionality depending on
> the time of day...
I am quite happy with BenH's tree. As long as disk space permits, I keep
old trees around, and especially one marked as 'good' ;-). That's the
kernel I run for day-to-day use, when not trying out newer kernels.
That is at this time probably the best approach to 2.4 kernels: try
BenH's kernels for some time, and stick to one that works well for you.
Cheers
Michel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Lanners | " Read Philosophy. Study Art.
23, Rue Paul Henkes | Ask Questions. Make Mistakes.
L-1710 Luxembourg |
email mlan@cpu.lu |
http://www.cpu.lu/~mlan | Learn Always. "
Reply to: