Subject: Re: [vserver] Up-to-date stable version?
From: "John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@opensourcedevel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:29:19 -0400

On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 21:04 +0800, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote:
> 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
> 
I think Herbert and Daniel are focused on code (as they should be).
There was a movement afoot a few months ago to help out by updating the
web site and documentation.  We're up to our eyeballs with a startup but
there were a number of other folks willing to step up to the plate.
Whatever became of all that? I'm sure Herbert and Daniel (hope I got the
names right) can really use the help.  This is a great product that we'd
like to see flourish - John
-- 
John A. Sullivan III
Open Source Development Corporation
+1 207-985-7880
jsullivan@opensourcedevel.com

http://www.spiritualoutreach.com
Making Christianity intelligible to secular society