> > Believe it or not, there are a few (ahem) folks running SMP systems in
> > production, and the 2.0 kernels may not be the cat's meow, but they
>
> any 2.0 SMP box that is not strictly cpu-bound is basically crippled.
Thats a definite overstatement with 2.0.3x
> > Besides it's hard to brag about months of uptime if you're rebooting to
> > install new kernels. :-)
>
> this doesn't imply that you must run each one. can anyone produce evidence
> that no 2.1 is as stable as 2.0? 2.1 is the product of over 2 years of
> concerted effort, most of which will never benefit anyone running 2.0.
>
> remember, 2.0 is basically bug-fixes since June 6, 1996.
The SMP bug fixes included IRQ forwarding which in some cases tripled the
scalability of non CPU bound machines.
Alan
