Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vanilla Kernel 2.6 Stability vs 2.4?

Posted by Cliff on from the to-upgrade-or-not dept.

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?"

38 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. This I know by xactuary · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am running the older kernel and it kept me from getting first post.

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  2. Works for me by meowsqueak · · Score: 3, Informative

    I use the vanilla kernels with moderately modern hardware (up to about 4 years old) and I have no stability issues whatsoever. I tend to stay within one or two versions of the bleeding edge release.

    The advantages of the 2.6 kernels (udev, nptl, device driver model) outweigh the disadvantages (i.e. risk) for my situation, in my opinion.

    That said, I still use linux-2.4 on my headless server, mainly because I haven't been bothered to upgrade it recently. It works fine, so I see little point in changing it.

    1. Re:Works for me by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, 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
    2. Re:Works for me by Aeiri · · Score: 4, Informative

      To really answer your question, what they ... 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?

      I've used a vanilla kernel 2.6 on Slackware for three different uses, my headless server, my media center PC, and my brand spanking new laptop.

      All 3 have worked perfectly without freezing since 2.6.5 (I didn't start using 2.6 until 2.6.5 came out). Now they are all running on 2.6.12, and they will soon be upgraded to 2.6.13.

      I'd say the organization of the configuration (make menuconfig) and the overall model the kernel is based on is much more clean and organized. I could never go back to 2.4 now.

      If you really want to test out the 2.6 kernel without installing/configuring anything, download Knoppix and try it out on your computers. If it runs well, then try it yourself, if it doesn't, then just stick with 2.4.

  3. Seems ok. by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've used various incarnations of 2.6 on my mythtv box. It's under fairly high load, with memory, video and disk intensive processes, has high PCI utilisation (2 capture cards, sometimes running at once). It runs 24/7, sometimes hot enough to get the CPU temp alarm beeping.

    Number of times it's had a kernel panic over the last year? Zero. Good enough for me.

    And as other posters have said, the advantages with hardware, latency patches, acpi support help too.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
    1. Re:Seems ok. by spagetti_code · · Score: 3, Informative
      Its not all rosy. The kernel version (2.6.11.7) used in Knoppmyth has an issue with USB hard drives - hence my extra HDDs plugged into the myth box were attached using firewire (not that its a problem).

      My point is that the 2.6 kernel is not without its flaws - it depends which particular kernel version you get and which warts it has.

      My advice is if it ain't broke...
      Do you really *need* the hassle of the upgrade?

    2. Re:Seems ok. by LordoftheWoods · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is an LFS user. Hassle is desirable. So yea, he definately needs it.

    3. Re:Seems ok. by extrasolar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what's your uptime?

  4. Gentoo 2.6.13 by Professional+Slacker · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can't speak for the vanilla kernel, but the Gentoo 2.6.13 kernel borked my system something fierce. The init process grinds to an virtual stop just after loading the kernel, it took a minute and a half to set the host name, I still haven't had the patience let it finish booting. But that's the risk of using a fresh kernel. 2.6.12 didn't give me any trouble.

    --
    A Free Market requires informed intelligent consumers, such people are rare, we're in trouble.
    1. Re:Gentoo 2.6.13 by rincebrain · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seconding. Gentoo user of vanilla sources straight from kernel.org, and the gentoo sources are a lot more unstable than the vanilla sources.

      I use vanilla sources regularly, and haven't experienced any problems as a result. I recommend them to all of my Linux friends, too.

      --
      It's only an insult if it's not true.
    2. Re:Gentoo 2.6.13 by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!
    3. Re:Gentoo 2.6.13 by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've heard of several issues with Gentoo kernels on Multi-processor systems.

      I just remembered the exact problems I'd heard of, and it wasn't Gentoo-specific (but it only appeared on Gentoo for some strange reason)... It was a CPU freq scaling thing with AMD64 CPUS. Apparantly the latest driver is broken and when the frequency scales down in one CPU the kernel detects a loss of sync and panics, instead of realising that the CPU frequency is scaling and compensating for it.

      It's fixed by disabling CPU frequency scaling. Apparantly AMD are working on a PowerNow patch for it, but that is just hear-say AFIK.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    4. Re:Gentoo 2.6.13 by rincebrain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:Gentoo 2.6.13 by M1000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 ;-)

    6. Re:Gentoo 2.6.13 by keltor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Before people start down the decrying Gentoo path too much, realize that Gentoo offers a bunch of different kernel choices, one of which is called gentoo-sources and that is what this poster is referring to, not Gentoo using 2.6.13 or anything else. Just this one source tree. I use vanilla sources on a unstable (as in latest greatest version of software not stability) and I have not had a problem. My uptime is typically the time between when I notice one kernel version and when I notice the next kernel version.

      Crazy thing is I noticed that I had installed at least 10 different patchlevel versions of Grub inbetween kernel versions without actually using any of those versions.

  5. very stable by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Core 2.6 seems very stable to me. There's always variation in drivers though, but even those are better in 2.6, afaict, eg:
    # uptime
      02:44:06 up 173 days, 8:46, 7 users, load average: 0.59, 0.30, 0.28
    # uname -r
    2.6.10-1.770_FC3
    Only occasional power outages and required kernel upgrades have taken it down. 2.4 was reliable too on that hardware though.
    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    1. Re:very stable by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doesn't the FC3 at the end of the version string mean "Fedora Core 3"?

      That's not a vanilla kernel, it's a patched up kernel from RedHat.

    2. Re:very stable by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2

      That's not a vanilla kernel, it's a patched up kernel from RedHat.

      Bah, yes. I completely missed the "vanilla versus patched-up" aspect of the question. I should go to sleep.

      Note however that FC tries to /not/ patch-up the kernel, like RH used to do for RHL. Only obvious fixes that are already on their way into vanilla are /supposed/ to be allowed into FC (AFAIK anyway).

      So, let me correct myself: No idea about "vanilla", but FC kernels have been rock solid for me, and FC kernels should be pretty close to "vanilla".

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Most importantly, read the expert documentation. by atomic-penguin · · Score: 3, Informative
    You will need the appropriate hotplug utilities, get them here.

    The 2.6.8 kernel had an issue with CD writing (only root could do this). This has been corrected in later kernels. You may have to delv into the udev rules to get things setup the way you like. Read the fine HOWTO on writing rules for udev.

    My cd-rom did not get recognized after boot unless the ide-cd module was called before udev started. There was a mixup with tty and pty in the default udev rules around the time of switch between 2.6.7 and 2.6.8 and it obliterated the 'less' and 'man' commands. How convenient is it that I can't run 'man udev.rules'?
     
    I believe this has also been remedied since then. If in doubt I suggest taking the following steps.
    1. wget ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2 .6.x.tar.bz2
    2. tar jxvf linux-2.6.x.tar.bz2 && cd linux-2.6.x
    3. less README
    4. cd Documentation && less post-halloween-2.6.txt

     
    Title of the second document is "The post-halloween document. v0.48 (aka, 2.6 - what to expect)". That should tell you everything you need to know about upgrading from 2.4.
    --
    /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
  8. what /boot is for.. by Daxster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why not put both into /boot and add both to your bootloader? There are lots of tutorials for doing that, for 'testing' in case a newly compiled kernel doesn't work.
    I have this on my Slackware -current computer. A vanilla 2.4, vanilla 2.6.10, and compiled 2.6.10 which I use and have had no issues with. I plan on compiling 2.6.13 soon, to keep up to date with bug fixes and improvements.

    --
    Death by snoo-snoo!
  9. Worked Fine For Me, So Far by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  10. Something doesn't add up here... by bergeron76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're an LFS Linux user ("Linux-from-scratch like" Linux user as you put it), and you're concerned about upgrading your kernel?

    Since you cross-compiled and built your libraries, compiler, toolchain, etc from scratch, why are you worried about upgrading your kernel? Surely, you know that it's trivial to modify your boot loader so you can boot multiple kernels and try them out without consequence to your system.

    Second, why are you interested in using a Vanilla 2.6 kernel if you built your entire Linux system from scratch?

    Please pardon me if I'm mistaken, but you certainly don't sound like a 'tweaker'. Your question is analogous to: "I'm a die hard car tuner, I've modded my hotrod and tweaked my cam's, changed my gear ratios and added 2 inches to my manifold: Should I use premium gasoline in my new Hot Rod?"

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    1. Re:Something doesn't add up here... by ZosX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should just try it. Maybe it will run better. Maybe it won't. You won't know until you try. Different people will have vastly different experiences with the same things in life. I mean sheesh, just look at sex for chrissakes! People generally build a test server first and work it under various loads to see if it will perform as well. If you think you can squeeze a good 10-20% decrease in server load by going to a newer kernel you should likely be looking at buying new hardware anyways if your little box is heavily loaded.

      You won't get any good answers from us other than just try it out. Without even saying much about your serve, information on the processor, RAM size, what you are running on it, how many users, etc, an answer to your question is probably not going to materialize.

      That car analogy is terrible btw. Anybodoy that knows anything about how combustion engines works knows that you use the fuel that your car is tuned for. The average economy minded car is likely going to be tuned for 87 octane. Why spend $1.00 more a gallon for something your car will not even take advantage of? Cadillacs and generally performance oriented cars are rated for higher octanes. Read your manual. You will not see any performance benefit from using a higher octane gas without added air, for instance, though I guess the O2 sensor should compensate for that a bit.

      --
      zosxavius photography
    2. Re:Something doesn't add up here... by chromis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  11. Re:Trick Question... by DigitalReverend · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
  12. not perfect by Bodhidharma · · Score: 2, Informative

    I like the 2.6 kernel over the 2.4 kernel because I can play MP3s and Oggs without skips every time I refocus the window.

    On the down side, I'm running Ubuntu 5.04 on a Sony S270 laptop. I use the 2.6.11 when I want sound to work at all and 2.6.10 when I want my touch pad to work right. I've tried a couple of custom compiles of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 but haven't gotten either to work right yet.

              Jim

    --
    A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
  13. Faster (more responsive) and udev works for me by mc_barron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Have grown to really love 2.6.x kernels. Started back in the low single digits, just upgraded to 13. NO stability issues for me, ever (at least not due to the kernel). The important things to me in 2.6: udev and better response time (switching between windows, etc). Just recently got udev working just the way I like it - can't imagine going back to the old devfs.

  14. My experiences with vanilla 2.6 by schon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I run Slackware, and just started using 2.6 in production a couple of months ago (about when 2.6.12 came out.)

    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 /etc/rc.d/rc.udev restart", it gets old very quickly.

    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 /sys/block/hda/queue.) For the time being, I've switched back to 2.4 for NWN.

  15. 2.6 is nice, kinda, maybe... by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:2.6 is nice, kinda, maybe... by cyclop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      I'm with you on this. That's why I'm pissed off at the lack of support for devfs from 2.6.13

      My god, the Linux kernel still supports dinosaur-era things like Minix file systems or m68k cpus (and it's good it supports them IMHO) but suddenly stops to support the device filesystem management it had until a week ago? Maybe udev will be a better choice in the end, but in the meantime, why am I forced to lose time switching to udev if I want to upgrade my kernel for, let's say, fix a buggy driver?

      --
      -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
    2. Re:2.6 is nice, kinda, maybe... by dozer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because nobody stepped forward to maintain devfs! A number of people offered but nobody actually followed through. That should tell you something right there.

      The version of devfs that you use right now is horrifyingly buggy, especially on SMP systems. Switching to udev will take less time in the long run than trying to the keep bloaty and rusted devfs code working. Switching to udev is generally very easy.

  16. Loving my Linux From Scratch, kernel 2.6.11.12 by qualico · · Score: 3, Informative

    Built a Hylafax http://hylafax.org/ system on top of the latest v6.1, LFS http://linuxfromscratch.org./
    Details:
    3GHz Intel Pentium 4 Processor, 1Gb RAM
    11,878.40 BogoMIPS Total, 250Gb Hard Drive
        GCC 3.4.3
        Samba 3.0.14a
        HylaFAX 4.2.1

    Gotta say it's way ahead of expectations.
    I won't touch another distro now for my mission critical.
    Although, Knoppix, http://www.knoppix.org/ and Ubuntoo, http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ are great "insert CD and run" distros, for workstations.
    Working with SlackWare seems effortless also, http://www.slackware.org/.

    Was fortunate enough to meet the fine gent who started the LFS project: Gerard Beekmans
    Highly recommended support for the project, even if it's just $5 for a beer via donations :->, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/contribute.h tml or a much needed "hints" writeup, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/.

  17. Re:Does this help? by GoRK · · Score: 3, Funny

    I moved an old 486/33 server once back in the day while it was in the middle of the OS install... We had started in one building in the room we thought we were getting, but we ended up getting a room on the entire opposite side of campus. Since installing a linux distro in this day was not exactly a speedy process, we decided to go ahead and move it while it worked. Three of us carried it.. One fellow on the CPU, one on the UPS, and one on the monitor -- we decided that if we were going to move a running computer, UPS alarms blazing it would be pointless for people to see us doing it without the screen powered up and scrolling mounds of text. We decided to hand carry it also as we though rolling it on a dolly might harm the running hard drive due to vibration.

  18. It's stable by anpe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just don't upgrade _right now_ to bleeding edge a bleeding edge kernel (2.6.13 in that case). Wait for the dust to settle (two or three weeks) and upgrade. I've done that since early 2.6.0 releases and it works like charm.
    Note: You can install triple dotted releases (2.6.x.y asap as they only contain minor upgrades or security fixes)

  19. Another analogy would be: by imr · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I'm an old slashdot user. I'm afraid people on slashdot wouldnt understand my perfectly understandable and clear point in a computer related discussion, so I make an analogy with cars."

  20. 2.6.13 is very stable by objorkum · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am using a plain vanilla kernel (2.6.13) on my Slackware 10.1 system, and it's very very stable. The earliest 2.6 kernels were a bit unstable for me, but since 2.6.8 or so, they have been very very stable. I notice that my self-configured 2.6.13 kernel is faster than the Slackware vanilla kernel (2.4.29). GNOME responses faster to my actions, for example.

    --
    objorkum dot com
  21. oh my god by XO · · Score: 2, Funny

    self-sufficient linux user for 4 years doing Linux from Scratch, and you don't know how to flip between kernels?

    I ran continuously from 2.5.56 (after my SCSI driver started working again) until 2.6.13 ? or so that was out about 4 weeks ago.

    Had virtually no kernel related problems.

    Then I switched to Windows.

    Life is much easier now.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/