From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: reiserfs on redhat advanced server? Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:39:29 +0300 Message-ID: <3E3A6071.6060102@namesys.com> References: <20030130173522.3aa4d0e1.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> <3E397A19.60409@namesys.com> <20030130234142.E8448@vestdata.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030130234142.E8448@vestdata.no> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ragnar_Kj=F8rstad?= Cc: Jure Pecar , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Ragnar Kj=F8rstad wrote: >On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:16:41PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote: > =20 > >>>does anyone have some expirience with the reiserfs provided in redhat's >>>2.4.9-e.3 kernel from its Advanced Server? >>> =20 >>> >>Linux 2.4.x did not become stable until 2.4.18. I strongly advise not=20 >>to use anything before 2.4.18 for a machine you care about. >> >>Well tested is not a substitute for stable.;-) >> =20 >> > >I don't know this kernel in particular, but in general RH's kernels are >heavily patched, and 2.4.9-e.3 may actually be closer to 2.4.18 than >2.4.9 from Linus. > > > > =20 > Heavily patched plus RedHat famous QA process without millions of end=20 users testing it like Linus/Marcelo has (err, without them testing it=20 before it ships on the CD I should say....), and you think it will be=20 more stable than 2.4.9? If you want a stable kernel for a mission critical server, the only=20 thing that works is to ask around and find out what Marcelo kernel has=20 been known stable for at least 6 weeks. QA can do a lot to avoid wasting the time of testers with bugs they=20 needn't have gone through the pain of hitting, but it can only do so much. Marcelo is very responsible and effective in his management of the=20 stable kernel series. He is unusually talented. RedHat doesn't have=20 anyone in his league doing QA --- you could throw a dart in a room of=20 professional release managers, and chances are low that you would not do=20 better than RedHat did. =20 I would never choose to use a RedHat kernel over a Marcelo kernel. What I find really interesting is that RedHat marketing manages to make=20 a lot of people think that a RedHat kernel is less adventurous than a=20 Marcelo kernel, when it is very much the other way around. --=20 Hans