On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 17:29, Herbert P�tzl wrote: > > I have tried the 21-ctx17 + vserver22 on a test server and it > > worked ok. > > worked okay, meaning you had no crash in 5 hours 8-)
22-ctx17a + vserver23, up 1 day, 1:15:45 and running (and just not longer because i had to switch disks). So if a Linux kernel hasn't crashed by then, it is considered not to crash for the next couple of months. > > I would like now to convert our hosting servers to vserver-enabled > > platforms to make use of the nice inherent features. > > sounds good to me ... Can't see no problem there. Works fine for me. > > Also, I have trailed today the 22-ctx17a + vserver23 and it didn't > > really worked. > > guess you experienced some of the changes and/or features > introduced recently ... but they are mere cosmetic warnings > and/or kernel misbehaviour not vserver problems ... > > > saying that there is no chrootsafe kernel support, and then some > > operations denied. > > the chrootsafe() message is a compatibility fallback, because > the author decided to publish tools (0.23) which use/provide > some features, not (yet) supported by the patches ... > > and if you've seen ulimit() messages, those are the result > of recent changes in kernel behaviour, but there is a fix > available ... > > 2.4.22-rcX with my ctx17a patches seemed very stable to me ... > I guess 2.4.22 can be considered stable with ctx17a ... > #include "stddisclaimer.h" I've been running 22-pre7-ctx17a for a long time without problems. Regards, Martin List-Petersen martin at list-petersen dot se -- Historic Underdosing: To live in a period of time when nothing seems to happen. Major symptoms include addiction to newspapers, magazines, and TV news broadcasts. -- Douglas Coupland, "Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture"
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
