tux on 2.4.27 kernel and referrer checking
joe
joe at tmsusa.com
Thu Oct 28 15:33:37 UTC 2004
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.
>
>
>
More information about the tux-list
mailing list