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 ;-) 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 like to testing and upgrade my system's several times a year :-(( I would like a system that will work for years with no or litle maintenance. (security updates) Thanks, Roman