Re: Don't use kernel 2.4.15/2.5.0 (fs corruption)
nate wrote:
> problems like this is why i believe 2.4 is not near
> stable yet, and why i won't be usin it for at least 10-11 more
> months on anything including test systems.
Your call, of course, for your machines. But in general I've found 2.4
to be pretty decent. I had something like two months of uptime with
2.4.9 before I decided to upgrade it to 2.4.12-ac3, which in turn ran
for a few weeks flawlessly before I decided to upgrade to 2.4.15...
which was a mistake, to judge from the postings we've seen today.
Fortunately, I hadn't rebooted since starting 2.4.15, so the unmount bug
hadn't bitten me. So I just went to single-user mode, synced, and
rebooted into 2.4.12-ac3, forcing fsck just to be on the safe side (it
didn't find any problems).
In general, a policy of "wait a few days to see if any catastrophic bugs
are found, then keep your last-known-good kernel around just in case"
has performed very well with 2.4.
Craig
Reply to: