26/09/02 15:46:11, guy keren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >dear people, > >i think there's some great confusion here about the usa of the term >'stable'. > >ariel (at least as far as i know) runs systems that bear a rather heavy >load over network connections. most people run machines that do not bear >that heavy load. thus, your definition of 'stable' is quite different. > >and its a rather known fact, that for realy heavy network, memory and >processing load on linux, most of the 2.4 kernel series was rather flowed, >at least until 2.4.18 came out. > >a company i worked with encountered lots of woes in this area (running a >machine with redhat's kernel or any vanilla 2.4.X kernel, about 8-12 >month ago) year back, perhaps 8 month back) in the lab and bombing it with >traffic while running their application on it (which used a lot of >memory), caused networking to stop working after several hours or half a >day, in a repeatable manner. only when then eventually installed a variant >of the 2.4 kernel with the 'aa' patches - did they manage to have a >machine running steadily - and that certainly wasn't a tested kernel, back >then, not to mention QA. > >you can argue that your experience was different as much as you will - but >the fact was that the VM code caused problems on a machine that was >hammered heavily the same problem existed with pre 2.4.10 kernels, that is >2.4.7, 2.4.9, etc). and as far as i know, not all of arcanageli's patches >went into 2.4.19 (muli - please correct me if i'm wrong regarding this >merge). > >this VM fiasco apparently did not have a parelel during the 2.2 >kernel release cycle, or with earlier versions - it did happen with 2.4 . > >btw, at the same time, another company that used much earlier 2.4 kernels >with an appliction that performs network processing - did not encounter >_any_ problem. ofcoruse, they handled traffic flowing at only 10 mega-bit >per second - and that did not use as much memory. and they were using very >early 2.4 kernels (including some 2.4-test kernels) - and had no problems. >so from their point of view, 2.4 was stable since quite long ago. > >so, i'd say again - stability depends on what you're doing with the >system. and QA alone cannot fix problems stemming from major bugs in the >underlying system. > >-- >guy >
True, but then how would you explain the article by Moshe ? He tested several 2.4 kernels and the RH 7.2 kernel, while a bit slower, was stable. Eli "There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones.." - Dire Straits ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
