Re: Kudo's and Question
> Currently I'm running kernel 2.0.6, and haven't noticed any major
> problems with it. I normally stick to the "If it 'ain't broke, don't fix
> it" rule, but I'm wondering if there are any reasons to go to say a 2.0.30
> kernel. Occasionally some TCP connections hang (mostly cfingerd) but reset
> in a day or two, other than that I have no complaint. So, anybody else
> out there has some advice/warnings?
>From what I have been reading on the kernel mailing list, you are PROBABLY
better off with 2.0.27 or .29
There were some things from 2.1.x that were hastilly introduced into
2.0.30 and can cause some instability (paging problems, etc). There is to
be a major push over the next couple of weeks to get 2.0.31 out and fix
these problems. There are several patches already to 2.0.30
(pre-2.0.31-2+ you might call it).
2.0.27 proved very stable for me. I am running .30 and have had the odd
problem here and there under heavy load.
George Bonser
Why is it that the same people that tell us that manned space flight
is a waste of money also tell us that we have been visited by aliens?
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: