[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2



On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:18:39PM -0600, Gary Turner 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?

Where x is smaller than, say 15, yes indeed. When it comes to the latest
releases I don't think so.

There was a thread on the stability of the 2.4.x series 6-10 November
2001 in debian-user. Personally, I had problems with 2.4.12. Now I run
2.4.16, and it survived my VM test, that 2.4.12 collapsed under. I would
go for 2.4.16 or higher (2.4.15+ gives you ext3).

Attachment: pgp1EcTbOKH7R.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: