-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Agreed here. If I'd be running on production, I'd definitely opt for the long term 2.6.32 kernel. Apart of that stable/tested on 3.0 also sounds nice. Cheers, - -Nik On 07/28/2011 06:03 PM, Roman Vesely wrote: > V Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:49:41 +0200 > Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> napsáno: > >>>> 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 ... > > > > Yes, I thought 2.6.32.x > 2.6.32 is best choice for sysadmin's (used by all major distributions) > > I think 2.6.32.x is a good choice for vserver team - less work and time than 3.x kernel. > > Roman > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOMlp+AAoJEDFLYVOGGjgXqzUH/11YsTeO5QojIMxd2Vk8KE/T QtQSGnamlhrOAHYfzq4fevggiPHtGLzJuywprYJ6HHTCM9e5Ruq2R/fwqOgZtlXn frwzQxHSjGhYnFhGlGAmGunxku2xyP0iFlCUxn+qa1dkxEZ/CDnIpI5DIC/x21Ix 8e9HbVoATfSUdZsziVN/qHCp2XYFNc8st2kc/Dlb857NyqgKl30L9cA2RKGfjZAn NgOzjL9l7mEBQruFUWXYdnUDrwKDv0N8K2I5ZSDLAhuhQl+M8vHl2d8alkCUOI/4 cc9q0h2x6jcon5tvl3WGxgBVLA0DMn6KmZCr1x+/+lK2AumSoFgSUa8xhVpr7aI= =0rbe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----