[K12OSN] K12LTSP 4.1 release plan. WAS: Poll: 4.02 vs. 4.1 alpha

[Eric Harrison]

On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 15:48, k12osn at collinsoft.com wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Eric Harrison wrote:
> > I want to have a solid, "probably production-ready" K12LTSP 4.1 beta out
> > by Friday. That will give me a week to fix any major problems that crop
> > up. Then I'm on vacation for a week and won't have 'net access, which is
> > *certain* to test how stable the beta is ;-). If no show-stopping bugs
> > show up in the LTSP/K12LTSP betas, I'll then declare K12LTSP 4.1 the
> > current stable release.
> 
> Any idea about smp stability or should I plan on sticking with 3.1.2?

K12LTSP 4.1 will use the 2.6 kernel. I have not heard of SMP stability
issues with the 2.6 kernels, but then they have not been as widely
tested as the 2.4 kernels. All of the 2.6 systems I have in production
are SMP.

The only significant SMP stability problems I have heard about are with
the FC1 2.4.22 kernels. Even then it sounds like it is likely to be very
specific hardware and/or usage that triggers the instability. So the
wider the testing, the more likely obscure issues will be known.

If you are seriously concerned about 100% stability, it is best to use
the well known, well tested enterprise versions (RHEL, WBEL, etc).
Likewise, using well known, well tested server hardware is just as
important, if not more so.

So, I guess that is the long-winded version of my standard answer to
this type of question ;-). If you want 100% stability, you have to use
old, crufty, well-tested hardware/software. If you want the
latest-n-greatest, fastest, shiny new toys, by definition you will not
be guaranteed 100% stability...

-Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/k12osn/attachments/20040722/e679a2e5/attachment.sig>