Re: tux on 2.4.27 kernel and referrer checking

[joe <joe@tmsusa.com>]

I define stable as how a given kernel performs day in and day out in 
actual use on a busy server. Ironically, I moved to the 2.5 test series 
awhile back because our trusty redhat 8 firewall kept locking up at 
random, and replacing the vendor supplied 2.4 kernel with a late 2.5 
series test kernel actually stabilized it.

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.
>
>