Prev: System with 12 CPUs will not boot
Next: running a bash command with a timeout
From: Ignoramus30064 on 9 Jul 2010 15:23
Due to having some unusual machines at work (with 12 cores), I need to
run a custom kernel instead of Ubuntu's stock kernel.

What I do is download a kernel, bunzip it, make defconfig, change
config, and run a few commands like make and make install etc.

I think that I have the process of installing it fully under control
and documented, so that I could do it on all those machines with just
a script.

What I want to ask is, what is a relatively recent kernel that is
known for being super robust and reliable and that "never has
problems".

This is in a context of a corporate application server that uses disk
and network and pretty much nothing else (a simplification). In other
words, I do NOT care about ndiswrapper, sound card drivers, NVidia and
things like that.

This server does NOT run X.

All I do care about is that the kernel runs, never crashes or leaks
memory etc. I know that all stable kernels are "pretty good", but I
want to pick a winner, so to speak. The most damn robust reliable
kernel out there that is within 2-3 recent releases.

Any suggestions?

My default route (if I could not ask here) would be to pick a kernel
that the most RHEL is using.

i
From: J G Miller on 9 Jul 2010 15:33
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:23:54 -0500, Ignoramus30064 wrote:

> What I want to ask is, what is a relatively recent kernel that is known
> for being super robust and reliable and that "never has problems".

None currently known, and probably never will be.

Every kernel has problems.

> The most damn robust reliable kernel out there that is within
> 2-3 recent releases.

The closest to that would be the current kernel for Debian Lenny
(stable).

Or for the corporate environment Centos, (or RHEL if you want to
pay for the RHEL support).
From: mjt on 9 Jul 2010 15:48
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:23:54 -0500
Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> wrote:

> What I want to ask is, what is a relatively recent kernel that is
> known for being super robust and reliable and that "never has
> problems".
>
> This is in a context of a corporate application server that uses disk
> and network and pretty much nothing else (a simplification). In other
> words, I do NOT care about ndiswrapper, sound card drivers, NVidia and
> things like that.

I'm not sure any kernel has had that "title". I think
my SLES machines are running 2.6.32. You could check
what SLES, RHEL, and CentOS are currently using for
your processor.

--
You can't start worrying about what's going to happen.
You get spastic enough worrying about what's happening now.
- Lauren Bacall
<<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>

From: Ignoramus30064 on 9 Jul 2010 16:09
On 2010-07-09, mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:23:54 -0500
> Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What I want to ask is, what is a relatively recent kernel that is
>> known for being super robust and reliable and that "never has
>> problems".
>>
>> This is in a context of a corporate application server that uses disk
>> and network and pretty much nothing else (a simplification). In other
>> words, I do NOT care about ndiswrapper, sound card drivers, NVidia and
>> things like that.
>
> I'm not sure any kernel has had that "title". I think
> my SLES machines are running 2.6.32. You could check
> what SLES, RHEL, and CentOS are currently using for
> your processor.
>

Yes, 2.6.32 seems to be the way to go. I tried 2.6.33.6. But I think
that going to .32.* is better.

i
From: Grant on 9 Jul 2010 16:38
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:23:54 -0500, Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> wrote:

>Due to having some unusual machines at work (with 12 cores), I need to
>run a custom kernel instead of Ubuntu's stock kernel.
>
>What I do is download a kernel, bunzip it, make defconfig, change
>config, and run a few commands like make and make install etc.
>
>I think that I have the process of installing it fully under control
>and documented, so that I could do it on all those machines with just
>a script.
>
>What I want to ask is, what is a relatively recent kernel that is
>known for being super robust and reliable and that "never has
>problems".
>
>This is in a context of a corporate application server that uses disk
>and network and pretty much nothing else (a simplification). In other
>words, I do NOT care about ndiswrapper, sound card drivers, NVidia and
>things like that.
>
>This server does NOT run X.
>
>All I do care about is that the kernel runs, never crashes or leaks
>memory etc. I know that all stable kernels are "pretty good", but I
>want to pick a winner, so to speak. The most damn robust reliable
>kernel out there that is within 2-3 recent releases.
>
>Any suggestions?

Yes, pick one of the 'extended maintenance kernels, for example the
second last one is now at 2.6.27.48! These are the kernels used by
the biggie distros for longer term life, usually over two years or
more. Current extended maintenance kernel is 2.6.32 series, now at
2.6.32.16, released a couple days ago.

>
>My default route (if I could not ask here) would be to pick a kernel
>that the most RHEL is using.

"
2.6.32-stable

I'd like to announce that the 2.6.32-stable tree is also going to be
maintained as a "long-term" stable release, living for 2-3 years, like
the 2.6.27 kernel is. This is because a number (i.e. more than 2) Linux
distributions are basing their "enterprise" releases on this kernel
version, and it will make their lives easier if I keep it alive.
" -- lkml: Stable kernel tree status, January 18, 2010

Grant.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: System with 12 CPUs will not boot
Next: running a bash command with a timeout