Linux Kernel 2.6.35 Released

eldavojohn writes "Linus has announced the release of 2.6.35 for people to download and test after he found not a lot of changes between this week and last. The big features to look out for include: 'Transparent spreading of incoming network traffic load across CPUs, Btrfs improvements, KDB kernel debugger frontend, Memory compaction and Support for multiple multicast route tables' as well as various performance and graphics improvements. Linus also praised the community saying that 'regression changes only' after rc1 improved this time around and gave numbers to back it up saying 'in the 2.6.34 release, there were 3800 commits after -rc1, but in the current 35 release cycle we had less than 2000.' Good to see the process is becoming more refined and controlled after the first release candidate — hopefully there's no impending burnout."

Comments

3.6.35?

[Lord Byron II]

Wow. The future has arrived.

Way to double-check your article, Timothy.

Still no ZFS.

[0100010001010011]

I understand why, but there are a ton of people out there that think OSS is OSS. You wonder why corporations are weary of OSS it's because of this. I really hope this project goes somewhere or Debian's kFreeBSD project works as well as I'm hoping.

Reminds me of this joke:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a software developer standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Well ... do you develop Closed Source or Open?"

"Open."

"Me too! Are you BSD or GPL?"

"GPL."

"Me too! Are you GPL v2 or GPL v3?"

"GPL v3!"

To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[tenchikaibyaku]

A ton of people out there who both think that all the Free Software/Open Source licenses are the same and are waiting impatiently for ZFS in Linux? Somehow I doubt it. And corporations are weary of OSS because the Linux developers aren't breaking Sun's(/Oracle's) purposefully GPL-incompatible license? Actually, did you have a point? I think I missed it. :-)

Re:Still no ZFS.

[afabbro]

The original joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and i saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[retchdog]

Courtesy of the inimitable Emo Philips.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[afabbro]

I understand why, but there are a ton of people out there that think OSS is OSS. You wonder why corporations are weary of OSS it's because of this.

I would wonder if they were, but they're clearly not. Corporations love Linux. It's less expensive and commodity. It frees them from expensive proprietary hardware vendors (Sun Sparc, HP Itanium, etc.) and lets them find the right x86/x86-64 servers for them. They can use free versions (e.g., CentOS) in some environments and paid enterprise versions (e.g., RHEL) in others. Most of the big enterprise packages (Oracle, DB/2, Websphere, JBoss, SAP, etc.) are available in Linux. The enterprise data center is a war between Linux and Windows (with the mainframe, AS/400, and other monotowers, though they are rarely growing).

The "SCO scare" is a thing of the past. I can tell you from personal experience after many years in the infrastructure world that the license headaches with Linux distros are nothing compared to the eternal headaches that I've had with companies like Veritas/Symantec, Oracle, etc.

Most of the decision-makers, technical architects, etc. in corporations do not operate at the "why ZFS is better" level. Does $LINUX_DISTRO support RAID, SAN multipath, and other common enterprise storage needs? Great. That's all we need. Frankly, while ZFS is great, it's not enough of a game changer to make someone buy Solaris over Linux.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[jd]

I'm increasingly wary of BtrFS, due to claims that there are fundamental design flaws. This does not mean I believe such claims (although I observe LWN's top file-system contributing journalist is quitting her job, her entire career path and her State) but it does mean that I want to see someone do a proper systematic analysis of the methods used and algorithms chosen. I'll probably use it anyway. Radical filesystem architecturing is hard and better options are almost always likely to exist - the question I have is how much impact this actually has on performance and safety of BtrFS. A little? A lot? About average for filesystems?

Re:Still no ZFS.

[0123456]

Meanwhile my TV, webcam and Blu-Ray players all appear to run Linux, as did the media players and cameras I used to work on. There are a ton of embedded Linux systems in all kinds of markets even when a real-time OS might make more sense.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[Lord Kano]

Don't be so sure of that. FUD is alive and well. Last summer I interviewed with a bank about a three month contract to move some data. When I asked them about the requirements for the platform/environment. I was told, flatly, that I could use anything that I wanted, as long as it wasn't open source. Open source means that anyone can see the flaws in the software and exploit them. I had two choices, I could keep my mouth shut and take the contract or I could speak the truth and blow my chances. I spoke up.

LK

Re:Still no ZFS.

[vadim_t]

Eh. Sun intentionally chose the license to be GPL incompatible.

And it's quite likely that their explicit intention was to be Linux incompatible as well. Should it have been licensed under some other terms, the license for ZFS would likely have been chosen to be incompatible with that. For instance, if Linux was BSD licensed, Sun could have just released ZFS under the GPL. While in theory it's perfectly compatible, in practice a BSD project will refuse GPL patches.

Which really makes sense, as Linux has been replacing Solaris in lots of places, and I imagine Sun didn't want to help them with that.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[cheater512]

You should only compare to what is already existing and mainstream, rather than what the theoretically best option is.

If its reliable in general use, and better than existing alternatives, its a winner in my books.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the OS is truly a commodity then it usually makes sense to go with the one that is the cheapest to acquire and also to maintain over the lifetime of the product. As both BSD and Linux cost the same to acquire the real question becomes:

Is it better to take advantage of the improvements others make to the OS knowing that any improvements you make have to be given up vs. the advantages of being able to keep your improvements secret knowing that your competitors can keep their improvements secret.

There is no right or wrong in business, just a balance-sheet. Different businesses will have different answers. However, philosophically... do you want to share nice or not?!

Re:Still no ZFS.

[CAIMLAS]

You mention the zfs github and kFreeBSD, but are you aware of Nexenta?

Honestly, I'm not sure why it's not as well acknowledged as kFreeBSD. The myopia involved there seems to be similar to what you make light of with your joke.

In the event that you really haven't heard of it, Nexenta is basically OpenSolaris kernel with Ubuntu userland.

You get apt. No, it's not debian, but if we're looking at ZFS implementations, it's a far cry better than the alternatives (FreeBSD = buggy crap and you've got to use ports; OpenSolaris = you've got to use Solaris/shoehorn useable modern tools in).

I'm not sure why we need to stick with Linux, per se, and what's wrong with OpenSolaris kernel/CDDL. Serious question here: is there something wrong I'm missing?

From where I'm sitting - user and admin of Linux for close to a decade, now - there's really not much of an advantage to using (or developing for) Linux over, say, FreeBSD other than the community of developers (including the install base, financial backing, etc.) and what that provides for you. I'm not sure if a BSD compatible license could ever get the financial support (from the likes of RedHat, IBM, Intel, etc.) Linux does because it could be 'turned against them', but for most people (administrators, developers, etc.) there's no inherent reason, one way or the other.

It just comes down to dogma.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[0123456]

I'm increasingly wary of BtrFS, due to claims that there are fundamental design flaws.

The only 'claims of fundamental design flaws' I'm aware of are that it has bad performance in some pathological cases. Which is true of every single filesystem ever produced and likely true of every filesystem you'll ever use in the future.

I'm certainly not aware of it having any flaws that ZFS doesn't; my main concern is that Oracle won't want to fund any more BTRFS development now they also own ZFS.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[drsmithy]

I'm not sure why we need to stick with Linux, per se, and what's wrong with OpenSolaris kernel/CDDL. Serious question here: is there something wrong I'm missing?

OpenSolaris was a dead platform the day Oracle bought Sun. You would be utterly insane to use it for anything important, today.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[joib]

Presumably he meant the issue described here: http://lwn.net/Articles/393144/

From reading the mailing list thread, my impression was that it was a storm in a teacup, and the real problem was just a simple bug rather than a fundamental misdesign. Or if you want to be slightly less charitable, a case of "concern trolling".

Re:Still no ZFS.

[k8to]

If you switched for ZFS without carefully considering whether it would meaningfully help for your particular use cases, you probably spent a lot of money and effort for no gain.

For most people, ZFS is a cpu-sink that offers slightly more convenient volume management, at a high price for hardware overhead and latency.

But you have to use it on solaris, because their UFS infrastructure is so out of date, you can't support a reasonable number of spindles (without investing even MORE money in moving that problem off the box entirely).

It has some neat whizzy bits, but those whizzy bits are not at all free, and things most people seem to not need.

Re:Still no ZFS.

[rubycodez]

the lack of adoption of OpenSolaris compared to Linux has to do with real world considerations. The summary of the reasons really is that Sun waited too late to roll it out, should have done it in late 90s. That would have solved the issues: It doesn't support the amount of hardware Linux does, doesn't scale from embedded devices to supercomputers, doesn't have a couple tens of thousands of packages made for it, is much harder to admin (speaking as certified solaris engineer)

Re:2.6.35 has not been released

[MichaelSmith]

Linus sez

So 2.6.35 is out, go check
it out.

in the other TFA so I suppose it is out.

Re:The year of...

[MichaelSmith]

Well its definitely the year of linux so far down in the guts of your cellphone that you don't know its there..

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft

[cjcela]

"Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable."

This sounds like FUD to me. I do not think the intent of your post is clean. Or maybe you have no clue and should consider getting better lawyers next time... then, if GPL still does not work for you, use some BSD flavor as OS for your next proyect.

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft

[Grey Ninja]

Troll Review:

Believability: 1/10. I would have given you a zero, except I notice one comment here that seems to think it's a legitimate point.

Humour: 6/10. The punch line was honestly not expected, and elicited a smile from me. But it would need a bit more work to truly be hilarious.

Anger response: 4/10. A fairly good natured troll. It does little to incite anger, but I think that if you worked on it a bit more and made the story more plausible, you could be a real contender, inciting hundreds of flames.

Overall: 5/10. A nice effort, but a little too obvious, and the punchline just wasn't enough, given the length of the post. The punchline could have been delivered in one simple paragraph.

Re:Big Features?

[FauxPasIII]

Perhaps, in the same sense that "improved the reliability of the rear differential" means nothing to 99%+ of automobile owners.

Oh crap, did I just make a car analogy?

Re:Welcome... to the REAL world (NEO)

[Bert64]

Were I in their shoes, I would realise that commercial software comes with no more of a warranty than open source. Despite all the money they extract from you, commercial vendors provide you no warranty whatsoever and you have to agree to these terms before they will let you use the software.

You can also buy commercially supported versions of open source, there are a huge number of such products available now.

If you want a system so critical that it flies a plane then you typically write it in house (there aren't that many places that actually build planes). you test it extremely thoroughly (far more so than any commercial vendor does), and then you have multiple redundant backup systems too.

The reality is that many decision makers in business and government simply don't understand very much when it comes to technology, they buy into propaganda that open source is bad but will happily buy things like cisco asa firewalls without realising they run linux.

World of Warcraft 3.3.5 fix made it into 2.6.35

[Anonymous Coward]

The fix for World of Warcraft under WINE made it into 2.6.35, though it is not mentioned in the changelist above. WoW 3.3.5 crashed under recent Linux kernels because it apparently made use of the "icebp" instruction, whatever that is; the kernel stopped sending SIGTRAP for icebp instructions in an earlier 2.6 build for whatever reason.

Diff of fix
Source code of file, showing the icebp fix merged in (search for "icebp")
WINE compat page

Re:The man took a two week vacation twelve years a

[JohnBailey]

Do we still have to talk about "burnout" every time we mention kernel maintenance?

Yep. It isn't a meme unless it gets repeated over and over.

Re:Welcome... to the REAL world (NEO)

[0123456]

I am also a professional software engineer/network engineer by trade since 1995

A young whippersnapper, then. When you have a bit more experience of the real world you might start to understand just how many critical systems already run on Linux.

BTW, I can make a safe bet that anyone writing avionics software is not running it on Windows either. Back when I was writing avionics software it all ran on custom hardware with no OS worth speaking of; and having a 'free' OS wasn't much of a benefit when our hardware was selling for the price of an expensive sports car.

Re:once burned, twice shy

[CAIMLAS]

You have to admit, it's somewhat disconcerting that there's nobody in his coattails to take over.

Unlike Microsoft or some other big softare company/project, Linux really has one controlling hand. If Linus goes kaput tomorrow, face in his wheaties, it would take a non-trivial period of time to get someone up to speed and filling his shoes.

Sure, there are other "non-current" linux developers/maintainers, and there are many others who have been doing the job in the past. But that's an entirely different development model than the 2.6 tree has been, and there's nobody who "fills in" for Torvalds when he wants to take a break. The man is 40; he's going to have to slow down sooner than later. He's certainly not keeping up his percentage of code commits, nevermind the level of code (though the quality, quite possibly). He's got 3 daughters and a wife; the man has to sleep at SOME point.

That said, I'm really pleased to see the decrease in regressions. I was starting to think that it was all open source OSes that were going down the shitter of late, but I am pleased Linux is still improving (though I do still consider the removal of the anticipatory scheduler a regression).

It just makes me uneasy that anything as big as Linux has such a small point of failure. It's possible I'm overlooking the importance of the distro kernel teams and other people who contribute, or overlooking something else, but as it stands now, his continued pivotal position makes me uneasy.

The lack of a unified "stable" kernel for distros to pull from (given 2.6s continued march) and at the same time the lack of a "real" development/next-generation kernel makes me likewise uneasy.

Re:once burned, twice shy

[gmack]

You have to admit, it's somewhat disconcerting that there's nobody in his coattails to take over.

There are at least a couple of good developers who could easily take over starting with the maintainer of the linux-next tree and if there were a huge disagreement then I'm sure the Linux foundation can step in if need be.

The lack of a unified "stable" kernel for distros to pull from (given 2.6s continued march) and at the same time the lack of a "real" development/next-generation kernel makes me likewise uneasy.

You would only say that if you haven't been using Linux long enough to remember when it was exactly the way you wish for. Back in the 2.4.x / 2.5.x days, people got so tired of features taking so long to be ready they started backporting the changes from 2.5.x to 2.4.x essentially making both branches unstable. For all of the whining kernel releases are a lot less buggy with fewer distro deviations from mainline. And as a bonus features actually get better testing now because fewer changes need to be tested at a time.

After having lived through that transition I never want to go back.

my wishlist

[StripedCow]

Since there seems to be no place on the internet where to post feature-requests for linux, here's four points from my list:

1. User-space scheduling. It would be nice if a process could have better control on the priority of each of its threads. For example, on a web service where multiple users are active, it is often necessary to give each user his/her share of the cpu. Right now this is rather difficult to do in a fair way, since multiple threads may belong to the same user.

2. Recursive strace: Currently it is not possible to run "strace" on a process which is already being straced. So for example: "strace -f strace -f ls" will not work (you'll get an "operation not permitted" inside the first strace. This makes it impossible for programs to use strace (or the related ptrace system call), since other programs which might also use strace, may depend on them.

3. "Nice" for bandwidth. It would be great if there was a command similar to "nice", which acts not on cpu-cycles but instead on bandwidth.

4. "Select" or "poll" with access to inter-thread synchronization structures. Select and poll are system calls which act mainly on file-descriptors. However, sometimes you'd like to wait also on a mutex or semaphore. Some support for this would be great.

This list is just from the top of my head. I could probably come up with a lot more.

Alex

Re:my wishlist

[Cajun Hell]

Since there seems to be no place on the internet where to post feature-requests for linux

There are tons of places on the internet for that. Try monster.com. "Wanted: Linux kernel hacker."