On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, fooler wrote: > im not putting down linux also but i still watch and observe its > performance. but nowadays, it is too scary to implement new kernel version > of linux in a production environment due to some reports that it can corrupt > a filesystem, its virtual memory is in mess, and others.
FS corruptions occur with the newer journalling file systems forced into the stable kernel release. This is understandable, given that one always wants to move forward with features, thus sometimes compromising stability. Reiserfs has lots of bugs (there are only a few known stable kernel + reiser patches prior to 2.4.2, and reiser only truly stabilised in 2.4.7, the same goes for XFS, ext3 and JFS, which even have less "primetime exposure". The AA (Andrea Arcangeli) VM for Linux which Linus forced down on us in 2.4.9 i believe made things a lot better wrt VM. Despite what Alan Cox said (2.5 in disguise), it has stabilised and performs much better than all previous kernels. Such are the ways in a bazaar development model, lots of contributors, lots of bleeding edge features, and lots of bugs as well. The trick is to sidestep the bugs, and use combinations of what is known to be stable. Despite all these shortcomings, i'd go for the bazaar model of linux anytime over bsd. The drivers will always be more up to date, the features more rich, and there will be more developers going around, keeping the project alive and kicking. It's a trade off vs. stability, but stability isn't everything. If i went for stability, i'd have stuck with my well updated redhat 4.2 which is still running on some of my production boxes with > 100days uptime. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
