PlaneShift

Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: RussianVodka on June 14, 2005, 02:11:30 am

Title: 2.4.x or 2.6.x Kernels?
Post by: RussianVodka on June 14, 2005, 02:11:30 am

So, which one\'s are better. So far I\'ve run FC3 with a 2.6.x, and a Debian (Sarge) with a 2.4.x.

I realy can\'t say which one I liked more or thought was better, seeing as I screwd up the OS instalation on both and both Linuxes ran prety poorly (due to my stupidity).

Anyways, which do you think is better and why? Also, if the latest version is better, why does Debian use 2.4.x?

Title:
Post by: Platyna on June 14, 2005, 02:17:52 am

It doesn\'t really matters, 2.6 has more features under development so it may
be unstable but it also has new drivers and solutions for new hardware. So
majority people (including myself) are running 2.4 on servers and 2.6 on
workstation (I am testing it on one server too, and 2.6.10 seemed to be most
stable one at the moment). Perhaps I would be very satisfied with 2.4 if my
graphics driver wouldn\'t argue with my framebuffer one, and the patch to
prevent it is only for 2.6.

Regards.

Title:
Post by: tuxy on June 14, 2005, 02:46:18 am

2.6 is working for me pretty well. I tend to stay with latest kernel on my desktop. I had some problems with nvidia drivers with some releases that were quickly resolved. Check releases from stable team they include only security fixes http://lwn.net/Articles/139429/.
If your hardware is well supported under linux you should try 2.6 on servers as well, it offers better performance then stock 2.4.

Title:
Post by: Platyna on June 14, 2005, 02:44:40 pm

Actually I made some kind of benchmark on my server, and 2.6 seems to have
alot worse performance, especially when we are talking about weird disk
usage during operations on files. Sure it is getting better and better but I still
wouldn\'t recommend a 2.6 kernel for server. My two cents.


Regards.

Title:
Post by: fken on June 14, 2005, 03:06:06 pm

I test the two release and off course the 2.6 is really the best!
When the 2.6 was out I tried to play videogames and some non accelerated games was something like 2 times more powerful (FPS x2)


type :
$ apt-cache search kernel-image

find something like :
kernel-image-2.6.8-2-xxx

and type

$ apt-get install kernel-image-2.6.8-2-xxx

and ... try to install the kernel-headers too (you will need it one day...)

Title:
Post by: Havox on June 14, 2005, 04:13:00 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Platyna
It doesn\'t really matters, 2.6 has more features under development so it may
be unstable but it also has new drivers and solutions for new hardware. So
majority people (including myself) are running 2.4 on servers and 2.6 on
workstation

:) what he said.
2.6x rocks hard tho. I use it myself.

Title:
Post by: tuxy on June 15, 2005, 01:31:17 am

Quote

Originally posted by Platyna
Actually I made some kind of benchmark on my server, and 2.6 seems to have
alot worse performance, especially when we are talking about weird disk
usage during operations on files. Sure it is getting better and better but I still
wouldn\'t recommend a 2.6 kernel for server. My two cents.


Regards.

Yep
There has been a lot of diffrences in performance in 2.6 series. Threading performance is much better in 2.6 then 2.4. I have in mind stock kernels thought. A lot of distrubutions backport lots of patches to their kernels improving speed and security.
For example: http://kerneltrap.org/node/4940

Title:
Post by: DaBlade on June 15, 2005, 10:19:18 am

2.6. Faar more advanced than 2.4. Besides, 2.6.7 was known as the most stable version in the history of linux. More stable than any other. Debian\'s management are fools to be sticking to ancient technology...