[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:50 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a couple of machines which I'm in the process of upgrading to
Sarge. I'm wondering about whether to upgrade the kernels. They're
all running some version of 2.4, which I've built for the particular
machines. If I don't get new hardware which need newer drivers, and I
don't care about any of the fancy new features of 2.6 (whatever those
are), is there any benefit in upgrading the kernel? Will newer
versions of some packages eventually need a newer kernel?
Thanks in advance for any opinions.
-David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David,
Wow, this is a sensitive question and my response is heavily opinionated, as
many answers to this question may be. I think a person in your situation
really needs to figure out their needs from the systems the operate, which
you obviously have. Let me qualify my response first with saying that I am
currently running 2.4.27-2 but will be upgrading/recompiling my kernel today.
I am learning towards staying with the 2.4 if I can get my webcam to work.
They're all running some version of 2.4, which I've built for the particular
machines. If I don't get new hardware which need newer drivers, and I
don't care about any of the fancy new features of 2.6 (whatever those
are), is there any benefit in upgrading the kernel?
Exactly. Since 2.4 and 2.6 kernels are both currently supported, and you
don't need any new fangled features in the 2.6 kernel...you'll probably best
be suited staying with 2.4. Why do I say this?
- Don't fix what isn't broken
- You will need to reconfig your kernel without use of a previous .config
file between 2.4 and 2.6.
Not true. When I upgraded from 2.4.19 to 2.6.12.2, I copied over my
.config and then re-ran make xconfig to tweak anything that was new /
changed. Of course, I got error messages about missing options, but the
window came up with everything available anyway and all the things that
_hadn't_ changed were automatically selected for me. Configuring the 2.6
kernel was thus much easier than configuring the 2.4 kernel had been (I
did the 2.4 kernel from scratch because my pre-2.4 kernel was the
2.2.22idepci kernel that came with the distro when I installed it).
Not too big a deal, but with the new options you
have to (should) go through each menu and make the right selections.
- Going of the last, you should continue to upgrade within the 2.4 kernel
series, for however long it is supported. Using your existing .config file
will save time and headaches! Upgrading your kernel within the series, of
course, keeps you current on security issues and other system related
'upgrades' (the problem with SCSI-emulation comes to mind).
- As a previous Hardened Debian programmer told me not too long ago, the 2.6
kernel is suffering from expansion issues. I see his point. There are lots
of programmers doing lots of things to the 2.6 kernel right now, inviting
security issues that are inherent in new software.
Will newer versions of some packages eventually need a newer kernel?
Perhaps (again, mention the SCSI-emulation). I wouldn't worry about it right
now. Since both kernels are supported, I would stay with what you need. 2.6
isn't the devil or anything, and I would upgrade to it in a heartbeat if I
determined that is what I needed. First I need to do some research to see my
hardware dependencies before I can make an informed decision. I respect that
you did the same before asking the question.
Hope this helps.
Respectfully,
Steve Siebert
Since I've now weighed in on this topic, let me state my position --
upgrade unless you have a good reason not to. Having no immediate need
to and being concerned about downtime may or may not be a good reason
not to upgrade depending on your situation and the criticality of the
machine / machines in question.
You will probably find performance improvements with the 2.6 kernel
since, for example, an O(1) scheduler has been introduced in the 2.6
kernel which means that, no matter how loaded up with potentially
runnable processes your machine gets, the time taken by the scheduler to
make a decision about what process to run next is constant. This is a
significant benefit over the 2.4 and earlier kernels, where the time
taken to make the decision was a function of the number of runnable
processes in the system. If you really put your machines to work, this
can make a noticeable difference to the responsiveness of the machine.
There are a lot of improvements in the 2.6 kernel -- another is improved
ALSA drivers for sound -- OSS is still supported but the ALSA drivers
are generally considered better. I could go on but others are no doubt
better qualified to do so.
Mark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]