The question of whether it's wise to keep old kernels is a cost/benefit issue. The answer may well vary from user to user. What's more serious, consumption of available memory by multiple kernels, or loss of functionality due to OS failure? In my case, the consequences of an OS failure _far_ exceeds consequences of running out of memory. Even though I've never had a problem with an RH upgrade, I still keep the previous kernel just in case. To me, this falls into the same category of backing up your data. You don't have to, but not having backups can cause heartache. I've had two backups, saved on different media, verified when created, both be corrupt. You can hardly be too careful!
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 16:08, Anand Buddhdev wrote: > Redhat writes: > > > When I upgrade the kernal and reboot there is a screen that > > lists the kernals on my machine, the top one being the new > > one. Should I delete the other kernels? If so how do I do > > this? > > You can see your currently installed kernel(s) with: > > rpm -q kernel > > This will list one or more kernels, for exmaple: > > kernel-2.4.19-8.9 > kernel-2.4.20-19.9 > > So if you are now running 2.4.20 after an update, and you want to remove the > older 2.4.19, just run the following as root: > > rpm -e kernel-2.4.19-8.9 > > It is important to specify the version and build numbers fully, so that you > remove the older kernel, instead of the current one. > > Some people might tell you that you should keep at least one older kernel on > the system, in case something is wrong with you current one, and you need > the older one to fall back on. In my personal experience though, I've never > had trouble with a newer kernel from RedHat, so I usually remove the older > kernels and only keep one on my system. > > -- > Anand Buddhdev > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
