> > > 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)
-- $ arch sparc $ uname -r 2.4.19-pre10 $ uptime 6:51pm up 38 days, 8:46, 7 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 (config: smp ss10, scsi, raid0, 1 network adapter)The latter is with my dynamic-nocache patch included.
T. - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:23 EST