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?"

19 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.

  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: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.

  6. 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}$/
  7. 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 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.

  8. 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/.

  9. 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.

  10. 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