Subject: Re: YDL 2.0 & kernel 2.4
From: Hollis R Blanchard (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 09 2001 - 10:07:40 MDT
On Wed, 9 May 2001 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> There hasn't been any mention wether the 2.4.x kernel in the upcomming
> release is considered stable or not.
It's mostly stable for some. Hardware the hackers use is of course much better
supported than anything else - for example, it was discovered recently that
Old World support had been completely broken for a while and no one had
> In the past, there was a 'this kernel
> is experimental' disclaimer, but there seem to be a lot of people using it
> and consider it somewhat stable (I noticed that BenH has a .stable
> version). Will there be a 2.4.x kernel in YDL 2.0 that could be considered
> stable enough for a production server?
Speaking personally, I've been running 2.2.19 for a long time to make sure
it's as stable as it needs to be. So I really can't say (and as I noted above,
it does tend to depend on your hardware...).
> The main reason why I'm especially curious about this is that I've got a
> couple of Dual processor machines that could really use that extra CPU,
> and I noticed that SUSE is shipping their 7.1 release with a 2.4
> kernel. This gave me hope that YDL would do the same.
We will ship a 2.4 kernel, but not as the default. SuSE PPC does the same.
Since you have a few of these machines around, I would recommend installing
2.4 on one of them and banging on it. If you're satisfied then go for it...
I suspect it will work just fine, but it's your job to decide if it's
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed May 09 2001 - 09:13:25 MDT