2.6 ready?

[Net Llama!]

On 04/04/04 10:38, Collins Richey wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 07:45:25 -0700
> "Net Llama!" <netllama at linux-sxs.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 04/03/04 19:07, Shawn Tayler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Guys,
>>>
>>>I remember some months back there was discussion on the stability of
>>>the 2.6 kernel.  I was wondering if there are any recent opinions?
>>
>>I'm running 2.6.x on most of my desktop boxes, and its been ok.  I'm 
>>prolly going to wait until 2.6.10 before putting it on any production
>>boxes.
>>
> 
> 
> It's been ready for me since late 2.5 days. There was one mild screwup
> (performance only, I skipped that dot release) in the earliest 2.6
> releases, but nary a blip otherwise.  Things like lm-sensors have only
> recently caught up, and those who depend on bleeding edge audio code
> have complained since alsa is now imbedded in 2.6 and lags a little
> behind the development versions. nvidia code was slightly problematic
> earlier and probably still is when it comes to framebuffer crap
> (editor's opinion only) which I never use. devfs users will note that
> this function is deprecated (but it works as well as it ever did),
> although there are some efforts to revive it. udev is still a work in
> progress. If you prefer hardcoded /dev/xxx entries, you won't care much
> about devfs or udev. I haven't used either of these very much, but the
> usb and laptop support is supposed to be much better, if not superb. I
> have a laptop running 2.6, but I haven't had time to monitor it closely.
> Scanner code has changed quite a bit with a new libxxxx (can't remember)
> providing the backend support.

Little,  if any of that, is relevant to production servers.

> 
> OTOH, if you have weird sh*t in the way of peripherals, perform due
> diligence before betting the farm. lvm has been deprecated in favor of
> lvm2. I've heard mixed reports on raid setups.

LVM of any version has been less than stable on any kernel.

> 
> I never had any reason to revert to 2.4 since I put up 2.5 (8 months?).
> YMMV.
> 
> And, oh yes, xfs is now a fully supported fs. I don't know whether
> that's good or bad, since I'm a died in the wool ext3 fan.

XFS was merged in 2.4.25 as well.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		    http://netllama.ipfox.com

  10:55:01  up 119 days, 14:31,  1 user,  load average: 0.28, 0.16, 0.16