Prev: System with 12 CPUs will not boot
Next: running a bash command with a timeout
From: Hadron on 9 Jul 2010 16:43
Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> writes:

> Due to having some unusual machines at work (with 12 cores), I need to
> run a custom kernel instead of Ubuntu's stock kernel.
>
> What I do is download a kernel, bunzip it, make defconfig, change
> config, and run a few commands like make and make install etc.
>
> I think that I have the process of installing it fully under control
> and documented, so that I could do it on all those machines with just
> a script.
>
> What I want to ask is, what is a relatively recent kernel that is
> known for being super robust and reliable and that "never has
> problems".
>
> This is in a context of a corporate application server that uses disk
> and network and pretty much nothing else (a simplification). In other
> words, I do NOT care about ndiswrapper, sound card drivers, NVidia and
> things like that.
>
> This server does NOT run X.
>
> All I do care about is that the kernel runs, never crashes or leaks
> memory etc. I know that all stable kernels are "pretty good", but I
> want to pick a winner, so to speak. The most damn robust reliable
> kernel out there that is within 2-3 recent releases.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> My default route (if I could not ask here) would be to pick a kernel
> that the most RHEL is using.
>
> i

Debian Lenny....

From: Jean-David Beyer on 10 Jul 2010 00:13
Grant wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:23:54 -0500, Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> wrote:
>

>> My default route (if I could not ask here) would be to pick a kernel
>> that the most RHEL is using.
>
> "
> 2.6.32-stable

I am curious. I run
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.5 (Tikanga)
and the kernel it runs is 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5PAE
It was released March 2007 and is supported for 7 years.

It looks as though RHEL 6 Beta 2 is using kernel-2.6.32-37.el6.i686.rpm
so it is very likely that you will have to wait until RHEL 6 comes out
to get a 2.6.32 kernel in an RHEL release. This will be supported for 7
years after RHEL 6 is released (my guess: sometime in late 2010).
>
> I'd like to announce that the 2.6.32-stable tree is also going to be
> maintained as a "long-term" stable release, living for 2-3 years, like
> the 2.6.27 kernel is. This is because a number (i.e. more than 2) Linux
> distributions are basing their "enterprise" releases on this kernel
> version, and it will make their lives easier if I keep it alive.
> " -- lkml: Stable kernel tree status, January 18, 2010
>
> Grant.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 23:50:01 up 2 days, 8:36, 4 users, load average: 4.67, 4.79, 4.84
From: Man-wai Chang on 10 Jul 2010 09:29
> Due to having some unusual machines at work (with 12 cores), I need to
> run a custom kernel instead of Ubuntu's stock kernel.
> What I do is download a kernel, bunzip it, make defconfig, change
> config, and run a few commands like make and make install etc.

I am compiling & running the most recent kernel (2.6.34.1) under Ubuntu
9.04!

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.34.1
^ ^ 21:26:01 up 3:46 0 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.00
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
From: Grant on 10 Jul 2010 20:08
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:13:35 -0400, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8(a)verizon.net> wrote:

>Grant wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:23:54 -0500, Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> wrote:
>>
>
>>> My default route (if I could not ask here) would be to pick a kernel
>>> that the most RHEL is using.
>>
>> "
>> 2.6.32-stable
>
>I am curious. I run
>Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.5 (Tikanga)
>and the kernel it runs is 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5PAE
>It was released March 2007 and is supported for 7 years.
>
>It looks as though RHEL 6 Beta 2 is using kernel-2.6.32-37.el6.i686.rpm
>so it is very likely that you will have to wait until RHEL 6 comes out
>to get a 2.6.32 kernel in an RHEL release. This will be supported for 7
>years after RHEL 6 is released (my guess: sometime in late 2010).

What are you curious about? Redhat have always (well, as long as I've
known about them, since 1996) run non-standard kernels, one of the
reasons I stopped using redhat six years ago.

GregKH works for Suse. But Suse and Redhat are major supporters of
the linux-kernel effort by paying many of the top developers. That
doesn't change whatever patchset they choose to add to their own
distribution kernels. A Linux company's direction might be a little
different from Linus' direction, but it is not a fork of the kernel,
simply that some patchsets are not seen as being so useful to the
generic linux-kernel.

If you're happy with RHEL, don't worry about it. Redhat know what
they're doing.

I thought OP's query was about which is best kernel to select,
disregarding distros.

For that, I suggested an extended maintenance release.

Grant.
From: Jean-David Beyer on 11 Jul 2010 08:48
Grant wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:13:35 -0400, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Grant wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:23:54 -0500, Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My default route (if I could not ask here) would be to pick a kernel
>>>> that the most RHEL is using.
>>> "
>>> 2.6.32-stable
>> I am curious. I run
>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.5 (Tikanga)
>> and the kernel it runs is 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5PAE
>> It was released March 2007 and is supported for 7 years.
>>
>> It looks as though RHEL 6 Beta 2 is using kernel-2.6.32-37.el6.i686.rpm
>> so it is very likely that you will have to wait until RHEL 6 comes out
>> to get a 2.6.32 kernel in an RHEL release. This will be supported for 7
>> years after RHEL 6 is released (my guess: sometime in late 2010).
>
> What are you curious about? Redhat have always (well, as long as I've
> known about them, since 1996) run non-standard kernels, one of the
> reasons I stopped using redhat six years ago.

I was confused when someone posted that the most recent kernel Red Hat
was using and the reply was 2.6.32 that will not be a RHEL kernel until
RHEL 6 (not yet current except in Beta 2).
>
> GregKH works for Suse. But Suse and Redhat are major supporters of
> the linux-kernel effort by paying many of the top developers. That
> doesn't change whatever patchset they choose to add to their own
> distribution kernels. A Linux company's direction might be a little
> different from Linus' direction, but it is not a fork of the kernel,
> simply that some patchsets are not seen as being so useful to the
> generic linux-kernel.
>
> If you're happy with RHEL, don't worry about it. Redhat know what
> they're doing.
>
> I thought OP's query was about which is best kernel to select,
> disregarding distros.
>
> For that, I suggested an extended maintenance release.

OK. I misunderstood and thought that you were replying to the
immediately preceding poster who was talking about RHEL. RHEL do offer
extended maintenance (7 years), but that, too, is a different meaning of
extended maintenance that you seem to mean. (I am not implying that this
means you are wrong; I am only saying that you and Red Hat mean slightly
different things by the same term -- a problem that often happens in
natural languages.)
>
> Grant.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:40:01 up 3 days, 17:26, 4 users, load average: 4.62, 4.50, 4.46
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: System with 12 CPUs will not boot
Next: running a bash command with a timeout