|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I have been deploying suse servers with 2.6 kernels in production and found them to be stable - IOW the servers don't generally go down unless it's for kernel upgrade or hardware maintenance. There was one nasty problem with the hbdev virus scanner, which loads a kernel module, and would do nasty things to capabilities, prevent bind from starting, and hang the system if you tried to shut it down - I chalk that up to bad code, and use clamav instead. Otherwise the 2.6 systems I've deployed seem to be rock solid.
I also found fedora core with 2.6 to be stable as well - I tried the 2.6 version of tux, and it did not perform all that well, so I have not really done much with it since, as the general kernel improvements have caused apache performance to come into the acceptable range.
Joe William Lovaton wrote:
Very interesting discussion... A question for all of you: How do you define "stable"? How do you measure it? Have you seen crashes with 2.6 kernels? Are they reproducible? I'm using Fedora Core 2 (with official updates) in a high loaded, high traffic production server and it is very, very stable. Right now it has 25 days of uptime. It could be more by now, but some reboots have prevented it. The only problem I have is TUX (not using it right now) and that's why I'm subscribed to this list. Anyway TUX is not present in the official kernel anymore.
[Older Fedora Users Mail] [Home] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [iPod Nano] [ATA RAID] [Fedora Bible] [Fedora Marketing] [Fedora Mentors] [Fedora Packaging] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools] [Fedora Docs]