dag at wieers.com
Mon Sep 25 14:00:31 UTC 2006
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, chrism at imntv.com wrote:
> Steph wrote:
> > I currently have a few CentOs 4.X servers running the latest stock
> > 2.6.9-42.0.2.ELsmp kernel.
> > I notice kernel.org are now up to version 2.6.18 and many people are using
> > the 126.96.36.199
> > Does anyone have any opinions with regards to the 17.11 and .18 kernels?
> > I'm led to believe the latest centos stock kernels are the same anyway as
> > are the backported Redhat ones.
> There is nothing really "wrong" with using a newer kernel. It just requires
> more work on your part. The beauty of the stock binaries (including the
> kernel) is that you can simply type "yum update blah" and know with a fairly
> high degree of certainty that the system will continue to work, that relevant
> security fixes have been maintained, dependencies with other programs
> maintained, etc. If you roll your own kernel from more recent virginal
> source, it is still likely to work fine, but you will have to mind all those
> other issues yourself. Unless you have some device that isn't working
> properly with the stock kernel, it probably isn't worth the hassle of doing
> things yourself.
Actually, it might be very wrong to run a newer kernel. Sometimes
interfaces with the kernel change and tools/libraries need to be updated
to accomodate this change. You' cannot be sure of that unless you have a
good understanding of those changes. (Especially for enterprise/production
The fact that you ask that question is probably a good indication for me
to advise not to change from a CentOS supported kernel. (unless you know
what you're doing but since you did ask the question... :))
-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
More information about the CentOS