From: Martin List-Petersen (martin_at_list-petersen.se)
Date: Wed 27 Aug 2003 - 00:24:15 BST
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
> > 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.
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"