On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 07:00:38PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 18:49, Build System wrote: > > > kernel-2.6.5-1.349 > > ------------------ > > I would like to ask everyone on this list to please test this kernel > hard; it has quite a few bugfixes but there always is the risk of > regressions; time to release is running out so please test! I'll try to test it on FC devel later tonight. In the meantime, I've tested 2.6.5-1.349 on RHEL 3WS and it works *very* well. (I realize that's an unsupported configuration, but 2.6.5-1.34x works far better on my test laptop than any 2.4 kernel, since it has working ACPI and sound. ACPI in turn gives me LCD brightness control, battery meter, SpeedStep, and tons of other stuff. 2.6.5-1.349 turns RHEL from a shiny toy into something useful for production.) BTW, recently I accidentally (long story...) found out on a production box that 2.6.5-1.32x is *vastly* more stable on heavy NFS workloads than 2.4.22-1.2188.nptl. I haven't tested with a newer 2.6.5 kernel because, as I said, it's a production box (right now it's running a 2.4.21-9.0.3.TL (Tao Linux) kernel, which seems about as stable as 2.6.5-1.32x so far). -Barry K. Nathan <barryn@xxxxxxxxx>
