smsiebe@gmail.com wrote:
Not true. When I upgraded from 2.4.19 to 2.6.12.2, I copied over my .config and then re-ran make xconfig to tweak anything that was new / changed. Of course, I got error messages about missing options, but the window came up with everything available anyway and all the things that _hadn't_ changed were automatically selected for me. Configuring the 2.6 kernel was thus much easier than configuring the 2.4 kernel had been (I did the 2.4 kernel from scratch because my pre-2.4 kernel was the 2.2.22idepci kernel that came with the distro when I installed it).On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:50 am, dzpost@dedekind.net wrote:I have a couple of machines which I'm in the process of upgrading to Sarge. I'm wondering about whether to upgrade the kernels. They're all running some version of 2.4, which I've built for the particular machines. If I don't get new hardware which need newer drivers, and I don't care about any of the fancy new features of 2.6 (whatever those are), is there any benefit in upgrading the kernel? Will newer versions of some packages eventually need a newer kernel? Thanks in advance for any opinions. -David --To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contactlistmaster@lists.debian.orgDavid,Wow, this is a sensitive question and my response is heavily opinionated, as many answers to this question may be. I think a person in your situation really needs to figure out their needs from the systems the operate, which you obviously have. Let me qualify my response first with saying that I am currently running 2.4.27-2 but will be upgrading/recompiling my kernel today. I am learning towards staying with the 2.4 if I can get my webcam to work.They're all running some version of 2.4, which I've built for the particularmachines. If I don't get new hardware which need newer drivers, and I don't care about any of the fancy new features of 2.6 (whatever those are), is there any benefit in upgrading the kernel?Exactly. Since 2.4 and 2.6 kernels are both currently supported, and you don't need any new fangled features in the 2.6 kernel...you'll probably best be suited staying with 2.4. Why do I say this?- Don't fix what isn't broken- You will need to reconfig your kernel without use of a previous .config file between 2.4 and 2.6.
Not too big a deal, but with the new options you have to (should) go through each menu and make the right selections. - Going of the last, you should continue to upgrade within the 2.4 kernel series, for however long it is supported. Using your existing .config file will save time and headaches! Upgrading your kernel within the series, of course, keeps you current on security issues and other system related 'upgrades' (the problem with SCSI-emulation comes to mind). - As a previous Hardened Debian programmer told me not too long ago, the 2.6 kernel is suffering from expansion issues. I see his point. There are lots of programmers doing lots of things to the 2.6 kernel right now, inviting security issues that are inherent in new software.Since I've now weighed in on this topic, let me state my position -- upgrade unless you have a good reason not to. Having no immediate need to and being concerned about downtime may or may not be a good reason not to upgrade depending on your situation and the criticality of the machine / machines in question.Will newer versions of some packages eventually need a newer kernel?Perhaps (again, mention the SCSI-emulation). I wouldn't worry about it right now. Since both kernels are supported, I would stay with what you need. 2.6 isn't the devil or anything, and I would upgrade to it in a heartbeat if I determined that is what I needed. First I need to do some research to see my hardware dependencies before I can make an informed decision. I respect that you did the same before asking the question.Hope this helps. Respectfully, Steve Siebert
You will probably find performance improvements with the 2.6 kernel since, for example, an O(1) scheduler has been introduced in the 2.6 kernel which means that, no matter how loaded up with potentially runnable processes your machine gets, the time taken by the scheduler to make a decision about what process to run next is constant. This is a significant benefit over the 2.4 and earlier kernels, where the time taken to make the decision was a function of the number of runnable processes in the system. If you really put your machines to work, this can make a noticeable difference to the responsiveness of the machine.
There are a lot of improvements in the 2.6 kernel -- another is improved ALSA drivers for sound -- OSS is still supported but the ALSA drivers are generally considered better. I could go on but others are no doubt better qualified to do so.
Mark