Re: kernel? 2.4.x vs 2.6.x
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Jacobs" <nospam@codegnome.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2005 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: kernel? 2.4.x vs 2.6.x
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 03:57:39AM -0600, Colin J. Ingram wrote:
>
> > that bittorrent releaves stress on servers, but the download was
> much> slower on my connection. This must be improved for
> bittorrent to
> > become a viable option.
>
> This is probably a problem with your client or Internet pipe.
> Cruise on
> over to the bittorrent FAQs, but I'd suspect that you aren't sharing
> enough during your bittorent downloads (are you behind a
> firewall?), and
> the protocol essentially punishes leechers.
>
> Under almost no circumstances is bittorrent *slower* than a direct
> download from the same source.
I actually made a mistake with that comment. I actually used jigdo. It
was 2-3 times slower then fetching the images directly. In any case, if
the point is to relieve stress on Debian servers/mirrors then why should
I have to share files in order to get a fast download. Especially for
those who are only trying to get the Debian images for installation. I
had no other for bittorrent(or jigdo for that matter) but I used the
later of them because I thought it was a good idea. However, in
practice it didn't work out to well. I guess my point is: if Debian
wants people to use alternative means of downloading images, those means
should be as easy and as fast as downloading the images directly through
ftp/http.
>
> > Should I upgrade to a 2.6.x kernel? In other terms, its pool
> time! Do
> > you use 2.4.x or 2.6.x with sarge and why?
>
> If you're running Sarge anyway, you're probably not running a system
> where you're afraid of new features and possible (though unlikely)
> problems, so why not stick with the latest 2.6 kernels?
>
> Stick with 2.4 if you want stability and upgrades only for serious
> issues, and 2.6 if you want the leading edge.
Im going to give 2.6 a try. thanks for your comments
Colin
Reply to: