Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:18:39 -0600 Gary Turner <kk5st@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:10:32 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:23:40 +0100 Tim Dijkstra <tim@BLUHBLAH.famdijkstra.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Is there any reason, not to run a 2.4.* kernel?
> >
> >There are those who think that 2.2 is more stable than 2.4 in
> >production server environments.
> >
> >Being a home user, I haven't had any problems with 2.4, starting
> >with 2.4.3, up to 2.4.17.
> >
> Please correct me if I have misunderstood. It was my impression that
> the odd numbered kernel sub-versions eg., 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 are/were
> testing/unstable. When they are ready for prime time, they are
> promoted. Thus 2.1 became 2.2, 2.3 became 2.4, and the current working
> version 2.5 will become 2.6 when ready for release. Is there any reason
> to thinks that there are anything more than minor bugs in 2.4.x?
You understand correctly, but there are those who think that
2.4 went out too early. There were (still are??) questions
regarding 2.4's stability under heavy memory loads (i.e., very
busy production servers that use lots of RAM).
--
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://ronandheather.dhs.org:81 |
| |
| 484,246 sq mi are needed for 6 billion people to live, 4 !
! persons per lot, in lots that are 60'x150'. |
! That is ~ California, Texas and Missouri. !
! Alternatively, France, Spain and The United Kingdom. |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: