Subject: Re: [vserver] Stable Linux-VServer Release
From: Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:49:41 +0200

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 04:31:39PM +0200, Roman Vesely wrote:
> V Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:36:10 +0200
> Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:


>> There have been numerous 'requests' for a new Stable
>> release and it seems like the Linux-VServer community
>> is willing to 'sponsor' the stabilization process ...

>> I've spent a bunch of hours on getting the 3.0 kernel
>> (patch) up and running to a degree where it is actually
>> useable

>> What might have gone unnoticed in the past is that
>> there have been quite intrusive changes in certain
>> kernel releases, which kept us from actually doing the
>> necessary code review and testing for a stable release

>>  2.6.22 -> 2.6.23 (scheduler, nsproxy, memory)
>>  2.6.26 -> 2.6.29 (memory, page cache, networking)
>>  2.6.32 -> 2.6.33 (sendfile, quota)
>>  2.6.38 -> 2.6.39 (vfs and thus cow, networking)

>> finally 3.0 has broken some things like the user name-
>> spaces and it will probably take some time till that
>> get fixed upstream

>> thus the first thing is to select a kernel we want
>> to stabilize for a stable release ...

>> options IMHO are:

>>  - 2.6.32.x (has performance issues, but is long term)
>>  - 2.6.38.x (good performance, not longterm yet)
>>  - 3.0.x    (immature, but the future)

>> note that whatever kernel we choose, the stabilization
>> will be for that kernel only, i.e. there is no way to
>> port such a kernel to the other branch (without need
>> to redo all the testing and review)

>> please share your thoughts and preferences in this
>> thread so that we get an idea where we are heading to

> Ok, I paid $ 500 (two working nights ;-)
very appreciated! 
I added an entry on the Wiki.

> I prefer stable and supported system.
> (Debian stable, LTS kernel from kernel.org and LTS 
> vserver patch, like 2.2.0.x branch or openvz style support) 

I don't see OpenVZ support anything but RHEL ...
I also take this as vote for 2.6.32.x, please clarify
if I'm mistaken ...

> I don't like to testing and upgrade my system's several 
> times a year :-((

I do not update my systems too often either, but I keep
the kernel updated (for security reasons)

> I would like a system that will work for years with no 
> or litle maintenance.
> (security updates)

thanks,
Herbert

> Thanks,

> Roman