On 5 Nov 1998, Dale E. Martin wrote:
> Andy Poling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Believe it or not, there are a few (ahem) folks running SMP systems in
> > production, and the 2.0 kernels may not be the cat's meow, but they
> > certainly are the tool for the job if you want/need stability above all else.
>
> I (and others) have found the late 2.1.x (for me > 2.1.104) to be way more
> stable than any 2.0.3x kernel. You might want to give one a try - better
> performance, too. As usual, YMMV.
>
Well, i've tried all the 2.0 kernels and every single crash I've had in
the past year on 6 machines has been IRQ deadlocks with SMP on, so I have
nothing to lose by trying a 2.1 kernel. I noticed when I tried it my nfs
and smbmount stopped working. Upgrading nfs clients fixed the nfs
problem, still have the smbmount problem, but I plan on trying to put
samba 2.0 on it soon. I've also read briefly that ipfwadm will be replaced
by some ipchain software?? Does this mean that ipfwadm will no longer work
in 2.1 currently?
-Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intergrafix Internet Services
"The best way to predict the future, is to invent it."
http://cygnus.ncohafmuta.com http://www.intergrafix.net
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
