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?"

Comments

This I know

[xactuary]

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

Seems ok.

[ColaMan]

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.

Re:Seems ok.

[LordoftheWoods]

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

Re:Gentoo 2.6.13

[rincebrain]

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.

Re:very stable

[ivan256]

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.

Re:Gentoo 2.6.13

[thegrassyknowl]

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.

Something doesn't add up here...

[bergeron76]

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?"

Re:Something doesn't add up here...

[chromis]

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.

Re:Works for me

[Aeiri]

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.

Re:Gentoo 2.6.13

[rincebrain]

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.