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