On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 05:42:26PM +0200, Jarry wrote:
> On 28-Jul-11 15:36, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>> options IMHO are:
>> - 2.6.32.x (has performance issues, but is long term)
>> - 2.6.38.x (good performance, not longterm yet)
>> - 3.0.x (immature, but the future)
> May I ask why you did not include the latest longterm 2.6.35
> (which I'd personally vote for)? I have no info about those
> performance issues of 2.6.32, but they might have been already
> solved in 2.6.35...
nope, first one to get them under control was 2.6.36 which
was rather unuseable for other reasons and the final
improvement IMHO appeared in 2.6.37
in general, I do not consider 2.6.35 a good choice ...
speaking of preference, mine would be on 3.x, mainly because
I think it will take some time to do the testing anyway and
it doesn't look that bad considering the recent patches
best,
Herbert
> Jarry
> --
> _______________________________________________________________
> This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
> Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Received on Thu Jul 28 16:49:38 2011