Slashdot Mirror


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.

59 of 539 comments (clear)

  1. Looks good.. by NightWulf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now to attempt to get it before it's slashdotted.

    1. Re:Looks good.. by Metasquares · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps if SCO would actually reveal the code to the public, a version could be made that is clean of "SCO's" code. Of course, they might just get laughed at if they reveal the code.

  2. Started to think 2.4.x was dead by phathead296 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    Phathead

    1. Re:Started to think 2.4.x was dead by mahdi13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    2. Re:Started to think 2.4.x was dead by gunpowder · · Score: 5, Informative

      I can't believe some still don't get this:

      As long as it's not available from ftp://ftp.kernel.org or http://www.kernel.org, there is no newer version of the linux kernel.

      The same applies to the ftp://gcc.gnu.org and GCC (not the website, they are always a little bit lame updating it).

      So if you say

      'Mandrake has already put the "2.4.21" kernel in their 9.1 release'

      your are wrong! They didn't. They lied to you. Or you are mistaken. Or they used a prerelease and renamed it 2.4.21.

      And no, 2.4.21 it's not 'too late'. Look at the Changelog and what huge amount of bugfixing has been done. And all those updates to the drivers!

      True, 2.6 will feature a log of nice extra stuff, but I guess 99.9% of all linux users are happy with just the features 2.4 has. They simply don't need support for NUMA, 64bit dev_t or Zero-copy NFS.

    3. Re:Started to think 2.4.x was dead by presroi · · Score: 4, Informative
      Far from dead...hell, the 2.2 kernel is still being maintained and patched (mostly by Alan Cox, but still...it's active)


      Even 2.0.X is still maintained. It currently stands at 2.0.40-rc6 (almost one year old).
    4. Re:Started to think 2.4.x was dead by gunpowder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Chill dude
      Thanks. I needed that!
      It's Friday, 13th, you know ...

  3. BitTorrent by Dreadlord · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if they are planning on an official BitTorrent.

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
    1. Re:BitTorrent by aliens · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bit torrent works best on large files. The source is only like 20megs. They could do it, but people should be only downloading the patch anyway.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    2. Re:BitTorrent by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > people should be only downloading the patch anyway

      Yeah, right, and people should be writing in Esperanto on their Dvorak layout keyboards, too, but that's about the same likelihood.

      If they _really_ want people to actually use the patches, they should release the patches first, wait about a week, THEN release the full kernels. Evil, I know. :)

    3. Re:BitTorrent by Xerithane · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, right, and people should be writing in Esperanto on their Dvorak layout keyboards, too, but that's about the same likelihood.

      Est tajp jam nun, kun Dvorak... sed mi.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    4. Re:BitTorrent by Wakkow · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've never done this before, but I thought I'd give it a shot:

      http://66.227.104.34/linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2.torren t

  4. Just to get these out of the way... by Drakonian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh man! My 286 just finished compiling 2.4.20!

    or

    Oh man! I was downloading at 4000 K/sec before this story showed up. Thanks a lot Slashdot!

    --
    Random is the New Order.
    1. Re:Just to get these out of the way... by shepd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it does.

      Sorry to burst your bubble... :)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  5. Be gentle to the mirrors by Spock+the+Vulcan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Instead of downloading the entire kernel, download just the patch file if you are running the previous version. Then patch your source tree using:

    cd /usr/src/linux
    bzcat /blah/patch-2.4.21.bz2|patch -p1
    make oldconfig

    1. Re:Be gentle to the mirrors by Spock+the+Vulcan · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I can download the Windows kernel source code and compile it in less than 5 commands, give me a call.

    2. Re:Be gentle to the mirrors by narfbot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      cd /usr/src/linux
      bzcat /blah/patch-2.4.21.bz2|patch -p1
      make oldconfig
      blah blah blah

      And you people still wonder why so many people stick to Windows instead of trying Linux? When I can double-click an icon and click OK and have it install the updates give me a call.


      What do you expect? Vanilla kernel compiles/updates aren't for the average joe. They can wait for their easy distro update.

    3. Re:Be gentle to the mirrors by volkerdi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Instead of downloading the entire kernel, download just the patch file if you are running the previous version.

      But, is anyone actually running vanilla 2.4.20, or keeping it in /usr/src/linux? Odds are that most people are running vendor kernels (even in Slackware the usually virgin kernel has been slightly violated this time ;), or at least applied the ptrace hole fix. As that fix is implemented differently in 2.4.21 it would be enough to keep the patch from applying cleanly.

      Of course, you might still have the official linux-2.4.20.tar.bz2 tarball sitting around somewhere, and if you do you can use that and the patch-2.4.21.

    4. Re:Be gentle to the mirrors by Shagg · · Score: 4, Funny

      And you people still wonder why so many people stick to Windows instead of trying Linux? When I can double-click an icon and click OK and have it install the updates give me a call.

      Wow, what icon can I click on in Windows to compile a new version of the OS from source code?

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
  6. Admin Question by peripatetic_bum · · Score: 3, Funny

    Im in charge of keeping production servers up to date. Im using a 2.4.20-rc7.
    should I go up tp 2.4.21

    How often should I build the new kernels for production servers (should I even be using 2.4? ie, stick with 2.2)

    Thanks for the Help!

    --

    Sigs are dangerous coy things

    1. Re:Admin Question by Malc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are you running a release candidate on a production server?

      If the server(s) is/are performing correctly, why bother upgrading? What will it buy you? Just apply security patches and don't tinker with anything else.

    2. Re:Admin Question by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 3, Informative

      Im using a 2.4.20-rc7.

      Well, the 2.4.21 kernel was (in reality) the RC-8. Look at the changelog and see if any of that applies to you. If so then yes, it's would be wise to upgrade. If not, then it's your call. This is why the changlog exists...

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    3. Re:Admin Question by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Im in charge of keeping production servers up to date. Im using a 2.4.20-rc7.
      should I go up tp 2.4.21


      If stability is important to you, you should only use proven, stable kernels on a production server.

      Unless there is some new feature that you absolutely need RIGHT NOW and cannot wait, it is very bad to use 2.4.20-rc7 on a production server. The "rc" stands for "release candidate", which means that the kernel is almost ready to be used by the public, but needs people to test it first.

      If you care about system stability, you should not be testing the kernel on a production machine. If you do want to test the kernel, do so on a test machine that is not a mission critical machine.

      On several occasions in the past, a release-candidate kernel introduced new code which would crash or corrupt systems that used the kernel.

      However, if 2.4.20-rc7 is not crashing on you, you don't need to upgrade to 2.4.21 right away. Review the kernel changelog, and see if any of the changes apply to you. Wait a few days (or weeks), and upgrade to 2.4.21 when it's convenient to you.

      Personally, unless there is some urgent fix that I need in the new kernel, I always wait a few weeks or months before upgrading the kernel, just in case some wierd bug was introduced into the new kernel version. During those weeks or months, I usually test the new kernel on a test machine and see if anything wierd happens.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    4. Re:Admin Question by kelleher · · Score: 4, Funny
      Quiet! Leave the guy alone!

      I get paid good money to come in and clean shops up after sloppy Admins have created unstable messes... :)

  7. I take it... by Albanach · · Score: 3, Funny

    SCO won't be offering this new kernel for existing Caldera Linux users then?

  8. Enjoy, losers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ha, I'm glad I have a life, unlike you losers! Knock yourselves out compiling the newest kernel; I'll be out having a blast with my girlfriend in my Porsche.

    (Okay, okay; I'm sitting at home in my underpants reloading slashdot to see if new stories are posted. I'll go download it now.)

  9. excellent, we can switch to this by mikeee · · Score: 5, Funny

    when our AIX licenses expire today.

  10. heres how to compile the kernel by net_bh · · Score: 3, Informative

    $ cd /path/to/kernel
    $ make menuconfig # Replace menuconfig with xconfig if you want
    -Select the options you need in your kernel and save it
    $ make dep bzImage
    -Look in arch//boot/ for the bzImage file
    -Install it for your favourite bootloader (grub/lilo) and reboot machine
    -gloat :)

    --
    There is no patch for stupidity

    Visit my blog

    1. Re:heres how to compile the kernel by mahdi13 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot some...

      make modules
      make modules_install

      Unless you are a masochistic...er, monolithic kernel builder =)

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
  11. Re:Quick Question by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Informative

    $ cp linux-2.4.20/.config linux-2.4.21/
    $ cd linux-2.4.21
    $ make oldconfig

  12. Ah by HughJampton · · Score: 3, Funny

    But does it run linux?

    --
    In Soviet Russia, beowulf clusters imagine YOU!
  13. RedHat kernels by DreadSpoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. :(

    1. Re: RedHat kernels by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting


      > 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.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:RedHat kernels by mahdi13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Red Hat 9 back-ported a disk scheduler which is a dog. either download this 2.4.21 vanilla kernel and compile it or recompile the default RH9 kerenl and remove the scheduler (I believe it is under General, been a while since I looked at this...the option right after the CPU info)

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
  14. Uhh....what timing by Cable_Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    All joking aside, I was in the middle of compiling 2.4.20 when I saw this article...

  15. Re:why not posting the http links instead of the f by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Funny
    ftp needs much more time and authentication stuff for login, commandos and so forth.

    Man, can't a guy download a kernel via FTP without a bunch of armed dudes storming the place? Those SCO guys just don't know when to give it up.

  16. Re:Quick Question by Osty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  17. 13th? by jmays · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, recompile my kernel on Friday the 13th? I think not ....

    --
    KARMA TAG! You're it.
    1. Re:13th? by cperciva · · Score: 4, Funny

      Friday the 13th means nothing to Linux. The day you want to avoid upgrading to a new kernel is thanksgiving.

    2. Re:13th? by cperciva · · Score: 3, Informative

      What happened on thanksgiving?

      Thanksgiving 2002 saw the 2.4.20 data corruption on umount kernel released; thanksgiving 2001 saw the famous 2.4.15 "greased turkey" data corruption on umount kernel released.

      There have been other kernels with problems, but it seems that the data corruption bugs tend to arrive with thanksgiving.

    3. Re:13th? by cperciva · · Score: 4, Informative

      The past two thanksgivings have seen kernels released (2.4.15 and 2.4.20) with serious data-corruption-on-umount bugs.

  18. Make mine unixfree, please by yukster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Um, can I get mine without the SCO code, please? That Darrell McBride is a scary man:

    The Linux business model was bound to change, and some people are having a hard time accepting this, McBride says. "The whole concept of getting something for nothing just doesn't hold up," he says. "The notion that you're going to run a Fortune 1,000 company on something that in the end could be more like Napster than an enterprise software system, it's a big question mark."
    InformationWeek, today
  19. Re:why not posting the http links instead of the f by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. because of the extra overhead in http transfers (the server's overloaded already - why put extra load on it)
    2. because of the ability to resume ftp transfers (w/o browser add-ins)
    3. because the people who are actually going to comile it are at ease with ftp (prevents wannabes from uselessly sucking up bandwidth and/or hosing their systems doing a fucked-up compile/install :-)
  20. how ironic... by Imoen1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That a new kernel comes out on Friday the 13th.

  21. Re:excellent, we can switch to this (SCO) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the Release notes:

    > o [Bluetooth] Use very short disconnect timeout for SCO connections.
    > o [Bluetooth] Kill incoming SCO connection when SCO socket is closed.
    > o [Bluetooth] Support for SCO (voice) over HCI USB

    Are these the lines SCO's bitching about?

  22. Re:Linux Tech. Support by ichimunki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounded more like laziness than cluelessness/newbie-ism to me. If the person was smart enough to get a release candidate kernel onto his server, he's either smart enough to figure out if he wants/needs to update to the actual release or he's using a distro and should ask them for an updated package that is known to work with their other packages.

    --
    I do not have a signature
  23. Re:why not posting the http links instead of the f by QuMa · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. HTTP has no more overhead than FTP, and in most cases less.
    2. So get a better browser (opera comes to mind) or don't use your browser. Just because it's http doesn't mean you have to use your browser.
    3. which they can do anyway
  24. This is a known problem, if: by WD · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the following are true, then the high CPU usage is expected:
    -You have an IDE CD burner
    -You are using IDE-SCSI emulation
    -You are burning a CD with a blocksize other than 2048 (such as redbook audio, or (S)VCD, etc..)

    If the above are all true, the ide-scsi emulation reverts to PIO mode. Supposedly this will be fixed for 2.6

  25. Re:excellent, we can switch to this (SCO) by nchip · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the Release notes:

    > o [Bluetooth] Use very short disconnect timeout for SCO connections.
    > o [Bluetooth] Kill incoming SCO connection when SCO socket is closed.
    > o [Bluetooth] Support for SCO (voice) over HCI USB

    Are these the lines SCO's bitching about?

    Nope. SCO in the bluetooth world means Synchronous Connection Oriented link.
    Used mostly with bluetooth wireless handsfree devices.

    --
    signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
  26. Re:Excelent by PipoDeClown · · Score: 3, Funny

    Your writing on a Linux machine now?

  27. 2.4.21 by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yippie! 2.4.21 is finally here! :) (I got it about an hour before the /. story showed up.)

    They now have Opteron support in there.. I knew it was in the pre, I was just wondering if the new kernel or the rest of my hardware would show up first. I have everything for a dual Opteron system, except the processors and case. I'm so anxious, I'm going to burst. :)

    ( ) 386
    ( ) 486
    ( ) 586/K5/5x86/6x86/6x86MX
    ( ) Pentium-Classic
    ( ) Pentium-MMX
    ( ) Pentium-Pro/Celeron/Pentium-II
    ( ) Pentium-III/Celeron(Coppermine)
    ( ) Pentium-4
    ( ) K6/K6-II/K6-III
    ( ) Athlon/Duron/K7
    (X) Opteron/Athlon64/Hammer/K8
    ( ) Elan
    ( ) Crusoe
    ( ) Winchip-C6
    ( ) Winchip-2
    ( ) Winchip-2A/Winchip-3
    ( ) CyrixIII/VIA-C3
    ( ) VIA-C3-2

    I'm going to be a compiling fool when the rest of the parts show up. :) I'm going to try to get Slackware running on it. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  28. Re:Impressive! by KewlPC · · Score: 3, Funny

    He could be running a 386 emulator on his 286.

    Or maybe he's cross-compiling.

    Or...

    Shut up ;)

  29. Omitted From Changelog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    - Removed offending SCO source code.
    - Replaced offending SCO source code with ASCII art of a middle finger.

  30. Re:oops! My bad.... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would anyone download multiple Debian CDs before installing? That just doesn't make sense. The most you should download is a 150 meg bootable CDROM image, then let the rest of the packages you want come over HTTP when you choose to install them.

    Debian prides itself on an enormous amount of packages... nearly twice as many, counting bytes, as RedHat provides. To attempt to download "a copy of Debian" is wrong and wasteful. The fun of Debian comes in when you decide, on the spur of the moment, to try some exotic free software program and can apt-get it in a much less time that it would take to even figure out the name of the RPM you'd need to install on a "normal" Linux system.

    Even if the desired install computer doesn't have fast internet access, burning 7 CDs is excessive. There probabably won't even be 2 CDs worth of packages you really want to install. Of the top ten largest packages in Debian, six of them are only desirable for hardcore software developers.

  31. Wow, lotsa changes! by mj01nir · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just finished reviewing the ChangeLog. Did anything not get touched this time? Good lord, there are arcnet patches in here.

    Also, when does Alan Cox sleep? Prehaps he's a new form of undead with an affinity for coding? Maybe he has cloned himself a few times? Alan, however you're doing it, we appreciate all of your hard work. Now go take a nice, long nap.

    --
    the no .sig .sig
    1. Re:Wow, lotsa changes! by rtscts · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think Slashdot reported that Alan had been merged directly into the kernel a few years back. He no longer has any need for his physical body.

      I believe there was even an X-File about it.. some shack in the middle of nowhere with a T1.

  32. Re:oops! My bad.... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, I have heard of the great "apt-get" and will definitely exercise it a bit.

    Even if you install packages from CD-Rom, you'll use the same interface as if you were getting it live from HTTP. The only difference is that it'll prompt you to insert the right disc first... and since most packages are small, it'll often take more time for you to find the disc than to just get it from the server.

    You didn't mention if you had downloaded the stable or testing Debian... testing is generally prefered, because it's not as painfully obselete. If you value stability, "stable" is good of course. But if you want to have fun and experiment, then newer is better. And if you're using "testing", then you'll probably want to keep up with changes made after the CDs were burnt. Debian "testing" CD-Roms go obselete really fast.

    I don't know why you have a problem with the naming of RPMs. I find that it is usually the same as the program or package name.

    RPM names also contain at least the version string, and often an indication of which architecture the software will run on. Sometimes supported OS versions are mixed in too. For example, when I tried to install a package on a Red Hat system, I had to download that RPM. Then go to install it, and find out I needed multiple other RPMs first, which need even more RPMs to work.

    The point of apt-get is you, the installing user, never even see the *.deb file that the package actually comes in. The hunt for dependencies is completely hidden from you.

    Of course, RedHat users can optionally run apt-get themselves, but that's not formally supported by the distribution developer.

    I won't go into the whole problem of not getting *.deb files for new, bleeding edge software. It's an accepted fact that Debian users who wish to try something brand-new will be compiling it themselves.

  33. Re:Intel SATA Support by Alan+Cox · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you do then you should also get Jeff Garzik's new sata as scsi stack patch and use that.