Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > nate wrote: > > > problems like this is why i believe 2.4 is not near > > stable yet, and why i won't be usin it for at least 10-11 more > > months on anything including test systems. > > Your call, of course, for your machines. But in general I've found 2.4 > to be pretty decent. I had something like two months of uptime with > 2.4.9 before I decided to upgrade it to 2.4.12-ac3, which in turn ran > for a few weeks flawlessly before I decided to upgrade to 2.4.15... > which was a mistake, to judge from the postings we've seen today. > Fortunately, I hadn't rebooted since starting 2.4.15, so the unmount bug > hadn't bitten me. So I just went to single-user mode, synced, and > rebooted into 2.4.12-ac3, forcing fsck just to be on the safe side (it > didn't find any problems). > > In general, a policy of "wait a few days to see if any catastrophic bugs > are found, then keep your last-known-good kernel around just in case" > has performed very well with 2.4. >
I usually wait until the next LWN kernel page comes off the press to see if there were any complaints about the current release... good thing I did this time ;-) And, I agree, 2.4.12-ac3 works like a charm (barring the fact that df will no longer list my root partition for some reason...)
