-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 02 February 2004 10:48 am, Norberto Bensa wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > If you want stability you shouldn't be running a 2.6.x kernel. > > Bah... I'm running (see signature) and it's stable enough for me. Even more > than 2.4.x.
I'm having no stability problems with 2.6. > I have two other boxes (servers) here running 2.6.1-mm[25]. They're stable > too. Of course my workstation goes excessively jerky when it starts > swapping (especially when compiling c++ code) but I can live with it for > now as I script updates to run while I'm sleeping :-P I switched to Linux 2.6.2-rc2-mm2 a couple of days a go and noticed that it runs snappier than any previous 2.6 and clearly faster than the best 2.4. Until I see a reason to go back to a 2.4 kernel, I'm on 2.6 for good. In fact, it's so good that I'm thinking about a custom compile for a couple of servers that have been running RH 2.4 kernels. I've been running the 2.6-mm sources since about 2.5.55 or so and they've all run great with very few exceptions. But, that was expected during beta. Technically, the kernel is 2.6 and not beta, but realistically, it's still changing pretty fast. If you are averse to risk, stick with 2.4.x. - -- "The choices we make dictate the life we lead. To thine ownself be true." -- William Shakespeare KI4DPT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAHv1HWMqSOYd58pwRAmJmAJ9uABAcLX1mL4oojFCOgo2bF+uZ/gCaA8Zu W/Ar/cg89H6eX6wndvySr+I= =UW68 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
