Slashdot Mirror
Glimmers From The 2.4 Horizon
Oestergaard writes: "We're finally going pre-2.4! Linus posted this on the LKML (Linux kernel mailing list): >>I just made a 2.3.51 release, and the next kernel will be the first of the
pre-2.4.x kernels. That does NOT mean that I'll apply a lot of last-minute
patches: it only means that I'll let 2.3.51 be out there over the weekend
to hear about any embarrassing problems so that we can start the pre-2.4
series without the truly stupid stuff. There's some NFSv3 and other stuff pending, but those who have pending
stuff should all know who they are, and for the rest it's just time to say
nice try, see you in 2.5.x. The pre-2.4.x series will probably go on for a while, but these are the 'bug fixes only' trees. These are also the 'I hope a lot of people test them' trees, because without testing we'll never get to the eventual goal, which is a good and stable 2.4.x in the reasonably near future. Thanks, Linus
Any help around with this?
Hetz (Heunique)
Yes and no. Remember that even most kernel hackers aren't familiar with every part of the kernel and can't fix everything that goes wrong. There are kernels that should legitimately be avoided by everybody, and then there are those that pretty much just work. Linus is now aiming explicitly at the latter; the kernels near the end of a development cycle need to get used so that bugs can be found and fixed. With this in mind, it's time for everyone to start using 2.3/2.4pre on all the non-production machines you can find. Bugs won't get fixed if nobody is using these kernels.
In answer to the original question, the best places to look are the Documentation/Changes file, which describes what software you need to build and successfully run the latest kernel, and the mailing list, which is archived at www.kernelnotes.org and other places.
Looking at past development versions I see:
(Ignore stupid typo or date calculations, I got this info from looking at the dates on kernels from kernel.org so I could be wrong)
1.1.13 - May 22 1994 (cant find a 1.1.0 so I'm guessing its about mid-april or there abouts)
1.1.95 - Mar 1 1995
time elapsed: ~11 months
1.3.0 --- Jun 11 1995
1.3.100 - May 9 1996
time elapsed: ~11 months
2.1.0 --- Sep 30 1996
2.1.132 - Dec 22 1998
time elapsed: ~27 months
2.3.0 -- May 11 1999
2.3.51 - Mar 10 2000
time elapsed: ~10 months
So we've run about the typical time elapsed between dev kernel versions but the current kernel version is half that of normal so it makes me wonder if we're ready yet.
.
Wanted: one clue, will accept good to mint condition.
Different devel kernels are broken and unbroken all the time. Some hardware configurations will work perfectly, while others will crash and burn. Consequently, it is not definitive that a 2.3. (x + 1) is going to be any more stable than a 2.3. (x)
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Sorry about the blatant self-promotion here, but if you want to run the new kernel, but don't have a spare machine and are worried about what it might do, check out my user-mode port.
It is the 2.3.51 kernel running in a set of Linux processes. No need for a spare machine, and it doesn't have access to your hardware or filesystems, so it's less worrisome than a native kernel.
Downloads are available here.
Jeff
One of the things that was a big headache for a lot of people going from 2.0 to 2.2 was firewalls.
Well one of the changes that people don't appear to be aware of was that it was completely rewritten again.
But relax, the new stuff was designed to be something to be easy to develop stuff on top of. So 2.4's firewall code will transparently work both like 2.2 and like 2.0 did, and there are hooks to do virtually anything you want.
But still if you want to find out what changed, wander on over to the Netfilter page.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I think that those people running the dev kernels could enlighten us about a few things. (Those of use who don't use Linux or don't feel like DLing 12 megs of source and ripping out our current kernel.)
You don't need to rip out your current kernel - I have 2.2.14 sitting around as a backup on some of my systems that run 2.3.
1) Is it an FASTER?
Visibly, especially if you have an SMP system.
2) How is the stability? Since this is a pre release, it better be pretty stable. The 2.2.0pre series laster 10 kernels or so, so this is fairly close to release.
I haven't had problems, although things newer than 2.3.48 have been unusable for me for various reasons (not stability related, though). YMWV (your mileage *will* vary), of course.
3) Any new features that would warrent upgrading (aside from the afformentioned speed/stability) I also have another question. What kind of resource usage are we looking at in this kernel compared to the 2.2x series? I say this because I have yet to see a major OS vendor pull a Be and actually make an already memery efficiant systems use even less memory at the same time it added a bunch of features.
The biggest non-speed related advantage is netfilter (a replacement for ipchains that's quite a bit more efficient). Everything else is for performace, scaleability, or both.
On the memory front, it's a mixed bag between taking up less memory or taking up more. The kernel marks more memory as unusable in 2.3 than 2.2 (dmesg indicates that that memory is where ACPI sits, even though I have ACPI disabled on the motherboard).
However, it certainly swaps less, even after several days of use.
WRT memory consider it to be about the same as 2.2.x.