Linux Kernel 2.4.21 Released

An anonymous reader writes "After > 6 months of waiting, 2.4.21 is here. Lots of cleanups, and a patch which gives a MAJOR boost to the 'feel' of the system under heavy disk IO, especially on IDE systems. As usual, available from your local kernel.org mirror or ftp.COUNTRYCODE.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/! Tidbit: 'Current bandwidth utilization 131.72 Mbit/s '." See the Changelog for new stuff.

Comments

Started to think 2.4.x was dead

[phathead296]

I was seriously starting to think the 2.4 series was dead in preparation for 2.6.0. The ChangeLog is impressive though.

Phathead

Re:Started to think 2.4.x was dead

[mahdi13]

Far from dead...hell, the 2.2 kernel is still being maintained and patched (mostly by Alan Cox, but still...it's active)

BitTorrent

[Dreadlord]

I wonder if they are planning on an official BitTorrent.

Re:Quick Question

[Osty]

When is it worth upgrading kernel versions?

When there's a compelling reason to upgrade. Those fall into two categories:

• The kernel fixes a previous security problem, or
• The kernel provides new features that you require for your product (not "want", but "need").

Any other reason is superfluous, especially for a server machine.

Is there a way I can easily use the old configuration?

The kernel config writes a .config file in the source root. Use that. If you patch rather than grabbing completely new sources, you won't even need to worry about copying that file around (unless you do a make mrproper, which you probably don't need to do unless stuff starts breaking during compile).

I must say I am very reluctant to upgrade the kernel.. especially when I don't have physical access to the machine. But I would of course love to the the fastest and most secure server as possible. Just curious what rules and procedures others use.

Years ago, back when the kernel was being updated nearly every other week rather than once every few months (2.0/2.2 time frame), I would always download the very latest kernel and compile that. Coincidentally, I was also learning Linux at the time, so I didn't mind spending time on stuff like that, and I was in school which meant a lot more free time. These days, my only linux box is a server, so unless there's a security fix I'm inclined to just leave the box alone. It's certainly easer not to upgrade than it is to upgrade.

Re: RedHat kernels

[Black Parrot]

> Hoping RH pushes updated kernels for RH9. Piss-poor IDE disk performance is my one big gripe with my Linux boxen at the moment; whole machine feels like shit when something heavy is running the disk in the background. :(

\AOL{meetoo}. Actually, even if I just had lots of windows open and not much CPU or disk traffic my UI felt like Windows 95, repeatedly coming to a screeching halt for several seconds at a time, usually when switching from one window or desktop to another.

I finally failed back to an older kernel I still had around, and the problem went away. I don't know whether the problem was with the 2.4.20 series kernels (I tried three) or the rumored Red Hack kernel hack that they purportedly distribute for RH9 (all three I tried were from RH RPMs). I'm just glad I was able to make it go away.