Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: What is the most stable kernel to date? | From | Steven Cole <> | Date | 12 Jul 2002 11:16:23 -0600 |
| |
On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 10:54, Tomas Szepe wrote: > > > > Has anyone conducted any tests to determine what is the most stable (as in > > > > reliable) kernel available? > > > > > > There is no such test because there's no way to describe "being stable" > > > in formulas. > > > > > > You might as well like to stick with a kernel that has worked for you > > > for a long enough time. If you don't need the features of 2.4, go with > > > 2.2-latest. > > > > Well, about stability: I'm running 2.4.19-rc1-aa2 for some days now, I > > didn't yet have any problems. My sparc64, meanwhile, is running 2.5.24-ct1, > > stable for more than a week of uptime yet. > > As for me, > > $ arch > i686 > $ uname -r > 2.4.19-pre10-ac2 > $ uptime > 6:51pm up 36 days, 19:14, 19 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 > (config: p2, 2 ide controllers, raid0, 2 network adapters) > --
Even with an early 2.4.x kernel, you can get good results. I guess it really depends on your load.
[steven@trenda steven]$ uptime 11:29am up 205 days, 23:29, 2 users, load average: 0.35, 0.14, 0.08 [steven@trenda steven]$ uname -a Linux trenda.esa.lanl.gov 2.4.1 #1 Tue Jan 30 08:03:20 MST 2001 i586 unknown
This is on an elderly Pentium-90 which ran kernel 0.99 for over a year once upon a time.
Steven
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |