stable? quality assurance?
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: KVM: MMU: introduce pte_prefetch_topup_memory_cache()
Next: NET_NS: unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free (after using openvpn) (was Re: sysfs bug when using tun with network namespaces)
From: Martin Steigerwald on 11 Jul 2010 10:30 Am Sonntag 11 Juli 2010 schrieb Eric Dumazet: > Le dimanche 11 juillet 2010 à 09:18 +0200, Martin Steigerwald a écrit : > > Hi! Hi Eric, > > 2.6.34 was a desaster for me: bug #15969 - patch was availble before > > 2.6.34 already, bug #15788, also reported with 2.6.34-rc2 already, as > > well as most important two complete lockups - well maybe just X.org > > and radeon KMS, I didn't start my second laptop to SSH into the > > locked up one - on my ThinkPad T42. I fixed the first one with the > > patch, but after the lockups I just downgraded to 2.6.33 again. > > > > I still actually *use* my machines for something else than hunting > > patches for kernel bugs and on kernel.org it is written "Latest > > *Stable* Kernel" (accentuation from me). I know of the argument that [...] > > advertised as such on kernel.org I think. I am willing to risk some > > testing and do bug reports, but these are still production machines, > > I do not have any spare test machines, and there needs to be some > > balance, i.e. the kernels should basically work. Thus I for sure > > will be more reluctant to upgrade in the future. > > > > Ciao, > > Anybody running latest kernel on a production machine is living > dangerously. Dont you already know that ? Yes, and I indicated it above. But in my - naturally rather subjective I admit - perception the balance between stable and unstable from about 1 or 2 years ago has been lost. In my personal experience it has gotten much worse in the last time. To the extent that I skipped some major kernels versions completely. For example 2.6.30. And its not servers - these use distro kernels. > When 2.6.X is released, everybody knows it contains at least 100 bugs. Then why its still labeled "stable" on kernel.org? It is not. It is at most beta quality software. Its not more stable than KDE 4.0 wasn't stable, but at least they mentioned in the release notes. > It was true for all previous values of X, it will be true for all > futures values. > > If you want to be safer, use a one year old kernel, with all stable > patches in. > > Something like 2.6.32.16 : Its probably more stable than all 2.6.X > kernels. > > If 2.6.33 runs OK on your machine, you are lucky, since 2.6.33.6 > contains numerous bug fixes. Actually it was 2.6.33.1 with userspace software suspend and it had pretty good uptimes above 20 days - only interrupted by installing 2.6.34. Well then if everybody else considers this for granted I just replace that "stable" on kernel.org by "beta quality" - from my perception it does not even have release candidate status in the last iterations - in my mind and be done with it. At as soon as the kernel contains a performant hibernation infrastructure I will probably just use distro kernels and be done with it. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
From: Martin Steigerwald on 11 Jul 2010 11:00 Am Sonntag 11 Juli 2010 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > worse in the last time. To the extent that I skipped some major > kernels versions completely. For example 2.6.30. Okay, not some, but one. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Martin Steigerwald on 11 Jul 2010 11:00 Hi Lee, Am Sonntag 11 Juli 2010 schrieb Lee Mathers: > Wow! > > First question what is a "desaster"? For me freezing the machine or at least complete desktop randomly for example. And actually I said "for me" as you can reread on the bottom of your top posting. > Second question, what makes you so important that you feel you can > makes demands and comments as you did. Since when I do need to be considered to be important by you or anyone else to make comments? Actually I think I do not - this is still an open mailinglist, isn't it? And I won't waste my time with proofs that I contributed to free software here and there - also to kernel testing what for example Ingo Molnar could testify back in early CFS times where I roughly compiled a kernel a day and to kernel documentation once. I also do not get why you are attacking me personally. It seems to be that you feel personally attacked by me. But I did not. I just questioned the quality of the kernel and its current quality assurance process. No one is personally bad then anything of that lacks. One reason for a demand for me is best expressed by this question: Does the kernel developer community want to encourage that a group of advanced Linux users - but mostly non-developers - compile their own vanilla or valnilla near kernels, provide wider testing and report a bug now and then? I can live with either answer. If not, I just will be much more reluctant to try out new kernels. But I have experienced working productively with kernel developers like Ingo and tuxonice developer Nigel who where pretty interested in my usage of latest kernels. I admit my wording could have been friendlier, too, but I was just frustrated out of my recent experiences. What I wanted to achieve is raising concern whether kernel quality actually has decreased and more importantly something needs to be done to make it more stable again. Well Linus has at least been a bit more reluctant to take big changes after rc1 this cycle, so maybe 2.6.35 will be better again. > If indeed these are production systems and you are an administrator of > said production systems. I suggest you need to do a little more home > work to expand your knowledge base. Its production system that have some fault tolerance, i.e. not servers, but laptops and one, not yet all workstations. But for me a certain balance has to be met. I will just downgrade and drop newer kernels or even start skipping whole major versions completely on a regular basis if that turns out to be the only way to have stable enough machines for me. One approach would be to stick to the stable kernels that Greg and the stable team maintains for a longer time > Hope you have better luck in getting your systems running well. Thanks. I certainly will. If need be by downgrading. I hope that someone answers who actually can take some critique. From the current replies I perceive a lack of that ability. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
From: Eric Dumazet on 11 Jul 2010 12:40 Le dimanche 11 juillet 2010 à 19:58 +0400, William Pitcock a écrit : > ----- "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Something like 2.6.32.16 : Its probably more stable than all 2.6.X > > kernels. > > 2.6.32.16 (possibly 2.6.32.15) has a regression where it is unusable > as a Xen domU. I would say 2.6.32.12 is the best choice since who knows > what other regressions there are in .16. > Yea, strictly speaking, you can be sure no kernel will be bug free, ever. This is why I said "probably more stable" ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Heinz Diehl on 11 Jul 2010 13:10
On 11.07.2010, Eric Dumazet wrote: > When 2.6.X is released, everybody knows it contains at least 100 bugs. [....] http://s5.directupload.net/file/d/2217/ckghonrx_jpg.htm :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |