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'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
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 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.