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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:23 EST