Re: .32 kernel
Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> wrote:
: I used it, until I heard that file system corruption was being experienced
: by some. I had no problems that I can see, and will probably do some more
: "experimental" use of it in the future. Particular problems?
Uhmmm, don't scare me!!! Three of our production servers (we have 5,
the others are running 2.0.30) are running 2.0.32. I heard that the
file system corruption problems were in 2.0.31 and that they were
fixed in 2.0.32.
As a matter of fact, I did not want to upgrade from 2.0.30 to 2.0.32
but we had a server crash (because of a power supply failure) and then
we got a new server that came with an Adaptec AHA-2940U (as opposed to
the NCR 53c810 the old server had). We did not have any problems with
the SCSI disks but when doing backups to our SCSI DAT unit lots of
timeouts and errors were generated. The problem dissapear afetr
upgrading to 2.0.32 so that's the reason we're there.
Up to now, 2.0.32 has been rock solid in those 3 production servers. I
have 10 days of uptime in one of them. I am knocking on wood and I
expect things do not change.
Also, the consensus in the linux-kernel list seems to be that 2.0.32
is a pretty stable kernel.
See ya!
E.-
--
Eloy A. Paris
Information Technology Department
Rockwell Automation de Venezuela
Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9431645
--
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 .
--
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: