-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Agreed here.
If I'd be running on production, I'd definitely opt for the long term 2.6.32 kernel.
Apart of that stable/tested on 3.0 also sounds nice.
Cheers,
- -Nik
On 07/28/2011 06:03 PM, Roman Vesely wrote:
> V Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:49:41 +0200
> Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> napsáno:
>
>>>> note that whatever kernel we choose, the stabilization
>>>> will be for that kernel only, i.e. there is no way to
>>>> port such a kernel to the other branch (without need
>>>> to redo all the testing and review)
>>
>>>> please share your thoughts and preferences in this
>>>> thread so that we get an idea where we are heading to
>>
>>> Ok, I paid $ 500 (two working nights ;-)
>> very appreciated!
>> I added an entry on the Wiki.
>>
>>> I prefer stable and supported system.
>>> (Debian stable, LTS kernel from kernel.org and LTS
>>> vserver patch, like 2.2.0.x branch or openvz style support)
>>
>> I don't see OpenVZ support anything but RHEL ...
>> I also take this as vote for 2.6.32.x, please clarify
>> if I'm mistaken ...
>
>
>
> Yes, I thought 2.6.32.x
> 2.6.32 is best choice for sysadmin's (used by all major distributions)
>
> I think 2.6.32.x is a good choice for vserver team - less work and time than 3.x kernel.
>
> Roman
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOMlp+AAoJEDFLYVOGGjgXqzUH/11YsTeO5QojIMxd2Vk8KE/T
QtQSGnamlhrOAHYfzq4fevggiPHtGLzJuywprYJ6HHTCM9e5Ruq2R/fwqOgZtlXn
frwzQxHSjGhYnFhGlGAmGunxku2xyP0iFlCUxn+qa1dkxEZ/CDnIpI5DIC/x21Ix
8e9HbVoATfSUdZsziVN/qHCp2XYFNc8st2kc/Dlb857NyqgKl30L9cA2RKGfjZAn
NgOzjL9l7mEBQruFUWXYdnUDrwKDv0N8K2I5ZSDLAhuhQl+M8vHl2d8alkCUOI/4
cc9q0h2x6jcon5tvl3WGxgBVLA0DMn6KmZCr1x+/+lK2AumSoFgSUa8xhVpr7aI=
=0rbe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Fri Jul 29 08:00:36 2011