Subject: Re: [vserver] Up-to-date stable version?
From: "Jeffrey 'jf' Lim" <jfs.world@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:04:15 +0800
Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:04:15 +0800
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 05:02:13PM -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 22:50 +0200, Claus Herwig wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > as I've to compile a new kernel for one of my vserver boxes, it's
> > > time to come back to this much loved question:
> > >
> > > Which (vanilla) kernel and which vserver patch version should I use
> > > for a production system?
> > >
> > > I know this question isn't entirely new, but even after scanning
> > > through the last months of mailing list posts I'm missing a simple
> > > answer ;-)
> > >
> > > The website states 2.6.22.19 + vs2.2.0.7, which is, well, ancient
> > > (1.5 years old i.E.)
> > >
> > > A second look at the website says 2.6.30.1 + vs2.3.0.36.14, which is
> > > experimental, what (at least for me) means that I shouldn't use it
> > > on a production system.
> > >
> > > Then I read in some other post, that it is of course useable in
> > > production - which just leads to another question: Why is it called
> > > experimental?
>
> > Funny, I was looking at this today as I need to rebuild one of our
> > vserver hosts.  We've been using kernel 2.6.28 and 29.  We've had a few
> > issues - a nasty kernel bug in both that occasionally requires a cold
> > boot (!) and constant segfaults in OSSEC.  We've needed to be on those
> > kernels because of even worse problems with iSCSI in older kernels and
> > we've learned to avoid the hang problem.  It still scares the living
> > daylights out of me and we are eagerly awaiting 2.6.30 which apparently
> > fixes this bug.  However, when I mouse over the link to 2.6.30.1 +
> > vs2.3.0.36.14, it still says pre3 so I am assuming it is not yet ready
> > for even daring production. Is that true? Thanks - John
>
> the person supposed to update (i.e. volunteered to maintain the
> list on the wiki) obviously didn't do so for some time now,
> and therefore it would be good to read the 'red note' above the
> experimental matrix and check out:
>
>  http://vserver.13thfloor.at/Experimental/
>

that's great - except that this is merely a list of files without that info
which says while patch is "development", vs "experimental"? Obviously, it's
great to have access here (damn the outdated list!!!), but I think we
probably need more help here...

-jf


On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 05:02:13PM -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 22:50 +0200, Claus Herwig wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > as I've to compile a new kernel for one of my vserver boxes, it's
> > time to come back to this much loved question:
> >
> > Which (vanilla) kernel and which vserver patch version should I use
> > for a production system?
> >
> > I know this question isn't entirely new, but even after scanning
> > through the last months of mailing list posts I'm missing a simple
> > answer ;-)
> >
> > The website states 2.6.22.19 + vs2.2.0.7, which is, well, ancient
> > (1.5 years old i.E.)
> >
> > A second look at the website says 2.6.30.1 + vs2.3.0.36.14, which is
> > experimental, what (at least for me) means that I shouldn't use it
> > on a production system.
> >
> > Then I read in some other post, that it is of course useable in
> > production - which just leads to another question: Why is it called
> > experimental?

> Funny, I was looking at this today as I need to rebuild one of our
> vserver hosts.  We've been using kernel 2.6.28 and 29.  We've had a few
> issues - a nasty kernel bug in both that occasionally requires a cold
> boot (!) and constant segfaults in OSSEC.  We've needed to be on those
> kernels because of even worse problems with iSCSI in older kernels and
> we've learned to avoid the hang problem.  It still scares the living
> daylights out of me and we are eagerly awaiting 2.6.30 which apparently
> fixes this bug.  However, when I mouse over the link to 2.6.30.1 +
> vs2.3.0.36.14, it still says pre3 so I am assuming it is not yet ready
> for even daring production. Is that true? Thanks - John

the person supposed to update (i.e. volunteered to maintain the
list on the wiki) obviously didn't do so for some time now,
and therefore it would be good to read the 'red note' above the
experimental matrix and check out:

 http://vserver.13thfloor.at/Experimental/

that's great - except that this is merely a list of files without that info which says while patch is "development", vs "experimental"? Obviously, it's great to have access here (damn the outdated list!!!), but I think we probably need more help here...

-jf