From: Stephen Frost (sfrost_at_snowman.net)
Date: Thu 17 Feb 2005 - 18:55:10 GMT
* Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at) wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 12:18:31PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Actually, a bad choice.
> well _in your opinion_ that is ;)
I don't believe there's really any serious question about the usability
of 2.6.10 (which I believe is what Lars was referring to when he was
talking about a 'vanilla' kernel- please correct me if I was wrong on
that) on a machine running iptables/conntrack.
> > > - mainline (vanilla) kernels get more testing
> > But continue to have bugs in them, hope you're not doing much 'net
> > traffic w/ that 2.6.10 kernel and iptables- it's got a bug wrt handling
> > RST packets, as in, it doesn't handle them well and your conntrack table
> > will get filled up. This is fixed in the Debian kernels.
> it is also fixed in the prepatches for the stable
> kernel release (2.6.11-rc4)
Yes, but I don't think that's what the discussion was about.
> > The Debian kernels also get a fair bit of testing themselves, I don't
> > know if it's more than vanilla kernels or not, but it's probably less
> > than RedHat kernels.
> nobody said that debian kernels are untested, and
> maybe they get more testing than the mainline kernels
> but for sure more feedback happens on lkml for mainline
> than for debian ... no?
Debian kernels get quite a bit of feedback.
Perhaps not as much as lkml, but Debian isn't developing the kernel,
just trying to maintain it. A better comparison would be to the
feedback RedHat or Suse gets.
> > > - linux-vserver patches for vanilla kernels get more testing
> > > - issues and bugs are easier resolved with more feedback
> > Debian's kernel team is actually rather responsive to handling bugs and
> > getting updates into their kernels to fix the problems in the vanilla
> > kernels (of which there's been more and more lately...).
> which isn't the point here, as I was talking about
> linux-vserver issues and bugs, which AFAIK are not
> resolved by Debian's kernel team but by the linux-
> vserver's kernel team ;)
> anyway, I never did and never will disencourage
> anybody willing to provide quality support for some
> distribution or spezialized patchset, on the contrary
> I'll support anybody doing so, as best as I can, and
> you should know that by now ;)
My only issue is with you appearing to recommend kernels with serious
known bugs over Debian kernels with a claim about more testing and
because vserver patches patch cleanly with 'vanilla' (ie: released, imv)
kernels. If people are really interested I'll provide a vserver patch
which patches cleanly against Debian sources.
Vserver mailing list