Date: Fri 16 Aug 2002 - 18:20:59 BST
> > > for reference this is a dual tyan board with 2G,
> You are not looking at saving on kernel footprint :-)
not really! though i am comfortable compiling my own kernels, and usually
do for production systems (ipvs, i prefer reiser over ext3, but like
redhat--something about leveraging those millions of machine hours as an
extra qa agent... and i'm only just now coming around to istalling 2.4
kernels on bastion hosts) i get nervous when my results differ than those
from the group whose patch i just installed, as is apparently the case in
> I do think that someone should make a huge kernel
> that does almost everything that would make sense
> on a vserver.
agreed. contrary to paul's original well-intentioned sentiments, getting
most people on the list to use the same kernel has a benefit, since
people's results should be more directly comparable. call me biased, but
if the binary kernel had support for 4Gmem and 3ware i would happily use
it over compiling my own... and imagine other folks would, too. i don't
think people are running vserver on a 486 w/16Mb. IMHO the thing to avoid
is turning the maintainer into a support group for non-vserver issues.
as always, i reserve the right to smoke crack on this or any other issue.