Slashdot Mirror
Vanilla Kernel 2.6 Stability vs 2.4?
chromis asks: "I am a 'Linux-from-scratch' like Linux user. I maintain my system for almost 4 years that way. I'm still using kernel 2.4, and I'm a little bit afraid for updating to 2.6 because of the problems like stability issues, driver subsystem problems, etc. I once tried 2.6.0 a long time ago, but I experienced random freezes which I could not diagnose. We all know about the development model issues, and I often read complaints about current kernel development practices. Now that kernel 2.6.13 is out, I really want to ask Slashdot: if you are a vanilla 2.6 kernel user, how are your experiences with these plain kernel.org 2.6 kernels? Is it really as bad as some people claim, or is 2.6 only usable when using a distro from a large vendor like Red Hat, SuSE, etc? I really would like to upgrade to the new vanilla 2.6 kernel eventually, but I'm a little hesitant. Any advice?"
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been using the latest 2.6 kernel, patched with Gentoo and Suspend2 patches. I started with 2.6.9, and it had some ACPI problems, but once I upgraded my BIOS to the latest version and upgraded the kernel to 2.6.10, everything worked well. Other than those specific ACPI issues, I've had no general stability problems. Everything works well.
I used to run Slackware, and I have to say that when I upgraded it from a 2.4 kernel to 2.6, the system did perform better. I think that if people just upgrade cautiously, it's fine to have the current kernel in development. Frankly, I appreciate the increases in responsiveness that the newer kernels have, and I like seeing cool new features appear in each kernel version. Why, just this version, they added support for my laptop's temperature sensor chip, which gave me access to the motherboard sensor in addition to the CPU one which is accessible via ACPI.
I don't know what all the fuss is about, but 2.6 has been great for me.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
I've heard of several issues with Gentoo kernels on Multi-processor systems.
I run a 2.6.12 on my desktop, and we are playing with 2.6.12 in a high-load embedded system. They both seem to work well enough here. I've only ever seen kernel panics when my network switch fails (damn dicky power connector; been meaning to replace) and the NFS-mounted root on the embedded box goes away.
I recently upgraded my laptop to 2.6.13 and it brought all manner of problems (wireless didn't work anymore. Sound problems that were fixed in 2.6.12 reappeared, etc). I think most of my problems are with the IPW2200 driver modules I have loaded, so I just rolled back to 2.6.12 where it all works well.
Stick with 2.6.12 for now if you're scared of problems. I can safely say that it is pretty damned reliable.
I drink to make other people interesting!
To really answer your question, what they (not me - I don't know crap about linux kernels, other than which one I've just upgraded to) need to know is what you'e using your computer(s) for. Are the advantages of the 2.6 kernel as listed above advantages for you?
;)
Personally, I moved from Win2k to linux (gentoo) due to instability in 3rd party software which I could get decent replacements for in linux. I generally run the lastest gentoo kernel, and haven't noticed any instability other than what my n00bishness has artificially created. Not that that helps you at all, I'm guesing.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Just a question : what stops you from adding this new kernel to your grub or LILO and stress test it in any condition you think will cause a freeze ?
I mean there are few things as easy as installing a new kernel and then removing it later if it doesn't satisfy you...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
I run Slackware, and just started using 2.6 in production a couple of months ago (about when 2.6.12 came out.)
/etc/rc.d/rc.udev restart", it gets old very quickly.
/sys/block/hda/queue.) For the time being, I've switched back to 2.4 for NWN.
So far, I'd recommend staying away from udev - it's just way too flaky for words - it seems OK if your hardware doesn't change, but when you start hotplugging and the device nodes don't show up unless you "sudo
Stability-wise it's OK, I'm using it on two desktops, three servers and my laptop, and haven't had a crash or oops. (Although I've only been running it for a couple of months.)
General desktop performance (KDE) is OK - I saw no noticeable difference from 2.4.
NWN is noticeably slower however - there seems to be a lot more disk thrashing while playing, even though swap is unused and there is a ton of free RAM (I think I might need to tweak something in
Gentoo seems to add unnecessary patches to the kernel that break things. I've had at least three cases in which using a vanilla kernel instead of gentoo-sources fixed the problem that was being experienced by the Gentoo user.
:)
The problem is that Gentoo doesn't add patches to fix known kernel bugs, they add patches to resolve user problems.
Guess what that does to stability.
Debian packaged kernels, like msot of Debian's stable branch, are very...stable, in contrast.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
I was on the same track. I was stuck in 2.4 land for a long time just because I had gotten my systems to the point where every piece of hardware worked and I knew how to get it all working again if I upgraded my kernel. Like you, I had trouble with the 2.6 kernel upgrade. I tried it once (circa 2.6.4) and it was a catastrophe for my wireless cards (madwifi and centrino). Finally I let Debian sid put in 2.6.12, and it seems all the 3rd party drivers have upgraded to the 2.6 bandwagon.
Configuration: I could run through the 2.4 configure tree in 20 mins or less. It takes me at least twice that in 2.6. Too much IP and an effed up broken patent/copyright system creating too many incompatible devices at levels that aren't easily segmented into kernel layers.
Compilation: Yeah. It takes a lot longer.
Performance: I noticed that mouse response in X is a lot faster. That's probably an artificial representative, though. I haven't really noticed load or response times to be much different from 2.4 to 2.6. Running on 400 MHz machines, I still notice this when it actually improves.
Modules: On a Debian 2.4 kernel I had maybe 12 modules loaded. On a LFS 2.4 kernel I had maybe 4. On Debian 2.6 kernel I have 91 modules loaded and many of them are for hardware which I don't have (see the section on configuration: there are too many devices which look the same to the kernel but are different due to IP pissing matches).
Udev: I hate it. I don't hotplug. I don't want to hotplug. Hotplugging is evil. My system shouldn't be doing anything with a device until I say I'm good and ready for it. Except for hotplugging, there's no real need for udev.
Mostly I'm upgrading to 2.6 because I can't afford to be left in the dust.
PS. No real LFS'er would call it Linux-from-scratch. Lose the hyphens.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
As I am typing this, I'm about to do make modules_install of gentoo's 2.6.13 kernel ;-)
;-)
You do know that this release dropped support of devfs ? From now on, you'll need a udev system.
Took me half an hour to convert to udev on 2.6.12, and everything went right.
But again, I as reboot on 2.6.13 after typing this, maybe I'll regret it
I understand why you ask this question :)
:)
Well, i'm not a real tweaker in the sense that I compile and tune everything for maximum performance. I rather tune the system to my specific software needs and stability in the sense of "if i don't ask for x, i don't have x". My system is very basic and i have a good overview. It contains only things that I need. I really like to put some effort in installing software so that I am aware of all it's features, dependencies and caveats. I like to do this by hand and by reading documentation from the software authors themselves. Yes, perhaps it is a tedious approach but it works very nice for me and i have a system which i can really trust. For me, this is the power of Open source actually.
Before I upgrade to a major version (be it a major GCC version - I worked with gcc 2.95.2+some patch for a long, long time before i upgraded to 3+, or in this case the kernel), I always spend some time researching if the upgrade is worthwhile and good.
So, yes: I cross-compiled and built libraries myself ofcourse, but i always try to choose stable versions. Also with kernels: i never tried an odd (2.1, 2.3, 2.5) kernel release.
In case of the kernel, I am little bit confused because of the development model (no 2.7), fast development cycles, in relation to the comments and complaints I sometimes read on the internet and here on Slashdot. Regarding kernel stability, it is my understanding that 'stability should be guaranteed by vendors' ie. 'use a vendor kernel'. I am my own vendor, so to speak. Hence my question.
In my years of experience, i know that critical parts of the system (toolchain, kernel) can produce very strange problems not directly noticable in a week of testing.
Yes, such risks are always present when using free software, but software from a stable chain always worked perfectly for me. Especially software where no-one complains about
I found it very difficult to find information regarding this, hence i tried Ask Slashdot.