Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 2.6.26 Kernel Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 2.6.26 Kernel Released

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.26 Kernel Released

    We were up to nine release candidates with the 2.6.26 branch but today the Linux 2.6.26 kernel has been released. Since 2.6.26-rc9 were mostly documentation updates and a few regression fixes...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NjU4OA

  • #2
    Well done, now no excuses for ATI anymore

    Comment


    • #3
      When is REISER4 going to be added to the mainstream kernel????

      Why are the Linux Kernel SABOTEURS keeping REISER4 from the mainline kernel.

      See, the Linux Kernel SABOTEURS @

      http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9509
      http://linux.50webs.org/jews/saboteurs.htm

      REISER4 HOWTOS.

      Some Amazing Filesystem Benchmarks. Which Filesystem is Best?
      http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
      http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1765

      Compiling yourself a 2.6.23 Kernel (with Reiser4 support). (2.6.24 Kernel Patch)
      http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/compile-kernel.htm

      Installing your favorite Linux Distro on Reiser4.
      http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/i...on-reiser4.htm

      Installing GRUB on a Reiser4 Partition.
      http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/grub-reiser4.htm

      http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kern...iser4-for-2.6/
      http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/util.../reiser4progs/
      http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/util...eiser4/libaal/
      Last edited by Jade; 07-14-2008, 07:38 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        @Jade, I know this is feeding the troll but reiser4 is just not a reliable filesystem compared to ext3, xfs, and jfs. I had to design a number of large reliable RAID setups at work over the years and extensively tested reiser4 a number of times. While for day-to-day use its probably okay, there were a number of different power / disk / controller failure modes (we simulated about 30 problems, both software and hardware with each new hardware platform) that lead to data corruption that effected reiser4 but not the others listed above. In our case these events would lead to downtime as we restored from tape. Reiser4 was only marginally (<5%) faster than xfs as well. We went with xfs as it was much faster (>75%) than ext3 and slightly faster than jfs (>10%), although our tests showed ext3 was slightly more reliable. (1 of the tests repeatidly led to complete failure on xfs while sometimes was recoverable with ext3)

        Thus, in my and many other professional opinions, reiser4 is simply not good enough to be used in a server environment.

        However, Namesys' boondoggle with giving up on reiser3 right after it was included in mainline, and developer personality differences doesn't help. I mean, this is open source 101, you have to be a good team player, otherwise you get left out.

        If reiser4 was somehow better than the alternatives AND was still being left out you might have a valid point. Its not. Trading ~5% performance for decreased reliability is not enough. Couple that with the developers being massively difficult and its easy to see why its not in 2.6.26 or any mainline release.

        Comment


        • #5
          reiser4 is just not a reliable filesystem compared to ext3, xfs, and jfs. I had to design a number of large reliable RAID setups at work over the years and extensively tested reiser4 a number of times.
          OK, I won't say you are lying, not yet anyway, but many people have testified to the speed of reiser4.

          I have had various people deliberately lie to me about many aspects of the reiser4 filesystem.

          I have had various people deliberately lie to me about many aspects of the reiser3 filesystem.

          Reiser3 was a huge improvement over ext2. So much so, that the kernel saboteurs were forced to develop ext3.

          Yet a group of organized liars kept creating lies similar to yours in order to kill Reiser3.

          The saboteurs didn't want Reiser3 in the kernel either, but couldn't keep it out without looking really, really, stupid, so it got in.

          This didn't stop the saboteurs hating Reiser3 and working hard to remove it from all commercial distros.

          If reiser4 was somehow better than the alternatives AND was still being left out you might have a valid point.
          You are wrong. Reiser4 is/was better than the alternatives and was still not allowed into the kernel.

          What you do say is essentially worthless.

          You say that Reiser4 is unsuitable for large reliable RAID setups,... but so what?

          Even if what you say is true, it is not relevant. 99% of users don't (and never will) care about RAID.

          I have tested reiser4 and in some cases I found that it was destroying files,... but I tracked down the problem and found it was caused by deliberate sabotage of the code.

          I have tested non-sabotaged reiser4 code and found the performance to be better than all other filesystems.

          I have been told so many lies about Reiser3 and reiser4 that I will not believe what you say until you present your supposed results in a way that your results are repeatable.

          This is just my reaction to the crowd of organized liars who attack Reiser3 and reiser4 at every opportunity and with any lie, or issue, they can think of, or make up.

          If you are not lying like them, then present your results together with the other results (by others) that you claim you know about, here for everyone to see.

          Comment

          Working...
          X