Posted Apr 18, 2006 21:45 UTC (Tue) by nix
In reply to: 2.0.38
Parent article: Quote of the week
The stable kernels are 2.6.16.x, not 2.6.x. Think of it that way and all will be well. Since I started using it in 2.6.10 the 2.6 series has seemed really hot stuff to me: bitten by one nasty swap-killing UltraSPARC bug in 2.6.10, fixed by davem in hours... you can't pay for that sort of response time, and the only way to get it is to use a kernel at least somewhat similar to that used by the upstream developers.
(Major data-corruption events experienced here with 2.6: 0.
Major data-corruption events experienced here with 2.4: 1.
2.6 even kept running with RAM so faulty that md5sums of 10Mb files returned different values each time.
Does my anecdote defeat your anecdote?)
to post comments)