V Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:19:53 +0100 Gordan Bobic <gordan@bobich.net> wrote: > > Yes, I thought 2.6.32.x > > 2.6.32 is best choice for sysadmin's (used by all major > > distributions) > > I think that is only a sensible course of action iif (if and only > if) 2.6.38.x will NOT work on the major distributions. If 2.6.38.x > will work on RHEL6 and whatever the latest version of stable Debian > is, then I think it should be preferred to 2.6.32.x. Since a > distro-patched kernel is unlikely to take a vanilla VServer patch > anyway, sticking with the distro kernel seems like a wrong choice, > considering that distro kernels (RHEL's at least) come with many, > many fixes and updates from much later kernels applied. > > Provided that 2.6.38.x (or 3.0.x) work on the current stable > distros, what specific disadvantage do you see in using 2.6.38.x > instead of 2.6.32.x? It's not like one will be more supportable (in > the sense of the main distro) than the other. My (=sysadmin) reasons for: 2.6.32.x: +++ High stability. A huge number of servers use it. Years to fixing bugs. +++ Support. Guaranteed support (bug fixes, security patches) for a long time. - Newer HW support. >=2.6.38: ++ Newer drivers, better hardware support. --- Unsupported. Big problems if a serious vulnerability found. - Untested. A very small number of servers use it. It has probably more bugs than LTS kernel's. Thanks, Roman (sorry for my english)