Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why upgrade the kernel?
55 views
Skip to first unread message
barnabyh
May 14, 2012, 12:44:17 PM5/14/12
to
Hi all,
a little more than a week ago I successfully compiled Linux 2.6.39.4 with
the config provided in Slackware 13.37 for a huge-smp kernel. For me that
is still cause for celebration. Managed to trim it down to 4.8MB (the
stock one is 5.6) but did not feel like spending too much time on the
trimming process. Nice to know that disabling relatively few drivers and
a group like Joysticks can have such effect!
Tests since then have shown it to work in all aspects, as hoped for, and
now I can even use brcmsmac firmware files (imported from an extracted
Debian package) to connect instead of using broadcom-wl from Slackbuilds,
as good as that was,
While it was fun to attempt this once again and succeed, I'm asking
myself whether upgrading the kernel is really necessary.
2.6.39 is old now as well, is there any other benefit to using the latest
if all your hardware is supported and working fine? I mean what's the
point if theoretically I can go on using this setup for another five
years until when ever this machine dies with all my stuff working.
Is it that vulnerabilities are discovered and always fixed in the newest
kernel, which would make it prudent to always run the very latest, or is
it merely a question of inclusion of new drivers and ever greater
hardware support?
If anything serious was discovered I suppose Pat would issue a patch like
he did with 12.2.
As I'm running this on a laptop with AlienBOB's efg firewall script and
no open ports, is there a benefit to using the latest 3.x kernels or can
I just as well stick to what I've got, a la if it ain't broke...?
TIA
Barnaby
a little more than a week ago I successfully compiled Linux 2.6.39.4 with
the config provided in Slackware 13.37 for a huge-smp kernel. For me that
is still cause for celebration. Managed to trim it down to 4.8MB (the
stock one is 5.6) but did not feel like spending too much time on the
trimming process. Nice to know that disabling relatively few drivers and
a group like Joysticks can have such effect!
Tests since then have shown it to work in all aspects, as hoped for, and
now I can even use brcmsmac firmware files (imported from an extracted
Debian package) to connect instead of using broadcom-wl from Slackbuilds,
as good as that was,
While it was fun to attempt this once again and succeed, I'm asking
myself whether upgrading the kernel is really necessary.
2.6.39 is old now as well, is there any other benefit to using the latest
if all your hardware is supported and working fine? I mean what's the
point if theoretically I can go on using this setup for another five
years until when ever this machine dies with all my stuff working.
Is it that vulnerabilities are discovered and always fixed in the newest
kernel, which would make it prudent to always run the very latest, or is
it merely a question of inclusion of new drivers and ever greater
hardware support?
If anything serious was discovered I suppose Pat would issue a patch like
he did with 12.2.
As I'm running this on a laptop with AlienBOB's efg firewall script and
no open ports, is there a benefit to using the latest 3.x kernels or can
I just as well stick to what I've got, a la if it ain't broke...?
TIA
Barnaby
Michael Black
May 14, 2012, 12:54:39 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012, barnabyh wrote:
> While it was fun to attempt this once again and succeed, I'm asking
> myself whether upgrading the kernel is really necessary.
> 2.6.39 is old now as well, is there any other benefit to using the latest
> if all your hardware is supported and working fine? I mean what's the
> point if theoretically I can go on using this setup for another five
> years until when ever this machine dies with all my stuff working.
>
There's three reasons the kernel is constantly upgrading. One is to fix
> While it was fun to attempt this once again and succeed, I'm asking
> myself whether upgrading the kernel is really necessary.
> 2.6.39 is old now as well, is there any other benefit to using the latest
> if all your hardware is supported and working fine? I mean what's the
> point if theoretically I can go on using this setup for another five
> years until when ever this machine dies with all my stuff working.
>
bugs, I suspect many that get reported are a result of recent additions
rather than the core kernel. Of course, this also includes security
fixes, though those are routinely issued as fixes to fix up older kernels.
Another reason is new features. That likely has flattened tremendously in
the past decade or so. Initially the kernel was simple and more added to
get it up to speed, but there's less and less "new features" as time goes
by.
The third reason is to adapt to new hardware. This may be the biggest
cause of additions, and bloat, to the kernel. Originally the kernel could
handle only very specific and generic hardware, while there are a lot more
drivers as time goes by. These won't mean a thing unless you are actually
adding new hardware that isnt' in the kernel you are currently using.
If the kernel works as is on your computer, there's virtually no reason to
upgrade, except for security patches. If you are changing to a more
recent computer, you may need a more recent kernel.
Some people just upgrade routinely, just because.
Others don't. I'm still using Slackware 12.0 and the 2.6.21.5 kernel.
I've had no problem, so I've never fussed. Admittedly some of it is just
getting around to it, it's no idealogy against upgrading, just not in a
hurry. I discovered a few weeks ago that I actually have a 12.2 DVD, I
cant' remember why I got that but didn't install it. At this point, I
might as well get 13.37.
Michael
Danno
May 14, 2012, 1:09:25 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
barnabyh <inv...@address.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
<snip>
> TIA
> Barnaby
Pretty rare for me to upgrade any more. Back in the 2.4.xx days, when a
lot of hardware support was still being added, I used to build a lot, but
these days (like you) all the hardware I've got is supported and stable
with the stock kernels.
Having said that, I did upgrade my fileserver's kernel recently, to
3.3.3, because of the work done on btrfs (which I will probably play with
when my RMA hdd arrives).
Generally, I stick with a kernel that's working, unless there's a real
reason to upgrade.
--
Slackware 13.1, 2.6.33.4-smp, Core i7 920
GeForce GT520, RLU #272755
barnabyh <inv...@address.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
<snip>
> While it was fun to attempt this once again and succeed, I'm asking
> myself whether upgrading the kernel is really necessary.
> 2.6.39 is old now as well, is there any other benefit to using the
> latest if all your hardware is supported and working fine?
<snip>
> myself whether upgrading the kernel is really necessary.
> 2.6.39 is old now as well, is there any other benefit to using the
> latest if all your hardware is supported and working fine?
> TIA
> Barnaby
Pretty rare for me to upgrade any more. Back in the 2.4.xx days, when a
lot of hardware support was still being added, I used to build a lot, but
these days (like you) all the hardware I've got is supported and stable
with the stock kernels.
Having said that, I did upgrade my fileserver's kernel recently, to
3.3.3, because of the work done on btrfs (which I will probably play with
when my RMA hdd arrives).
Generally, I stick with a kernel that's working, unless there's a real
reason to upgrade.
--
Slackware 13.1, 2.6.33.4-smp, Core i7 920
GeForce GT520, RLU #272755
Grant
May 15, 2012, 6:21:55 AM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:44:17 +0000 (UTC), barnabyh <inv...@address.org> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>a little more than a week ago I successfully compiled Linux 2.6.39.4 with
>the config provided in Slackware 13.37 for a huge-smp kernel. For me that
>is still cause for celebration. Managed to trim it down to 4.8MB (the
>stock one is 5.6) but did not feel like spending too much time on the
>trimming process. Nice to know that disabling relatively few drivers and
>a group like Joysticks can have such effect!
Lots of drivers one doesn't need, worth it? Only if the stock kernel
>Hi all,
>
>a little more than a week ago I successfully compiled Linux 2.6.39.4 with
>the config provided in Slackware 13.37 for a huge-smp kernel. For me that
>is still cause for celebration. Managed to trim it down to 4.8MB (the
>stock one is 5.6) but did not feel like spending too much time on the
>trimming process. Nice to know that disabling relatively few drivers and
>a group like Joysticks can have such effect!
doesn't do the expected. Latest stable kernel is 3.3.6, while 3.0.x
seems to be long-term stable, currently 3.0.31.
...
>While it was fun to attempt this once again and succeed, I'm asking
>myself whether upgrading the kernel is really necessary.
>2.6.39 is old now as well, is there any other benefit to using the latest
>if all your hardware is supported and working fine? I mean what's the
>point if theoretically I can go on using this setup for another five
>years until when ever this machine dies with all my stuff working.
There's also the security fixes one only rarely reads about. The
>myself whether upgrading the kernel is really necessary.
>2.6.39 is old now as well, is there any other benefit to using the latest
>if all your hardware is supported and working fine? I mean what's the
>point if theoretically I can go on using this setup for another five
>years until when ever this machine dies with all my stuff working.
linux kernel is a moving target, keeping up with drivers and the
latest in ARM SoC (system on chip) designs that many tablet computers
are using.
>
>Is it that vulnerabilities are discovered and always fixed in the newest
>kernel, which would make it prudent to always run the very latest, or is
>it merely a question of inclusion of new drivers and ever greater
>hardware support?
Both.
>Is it that vulnerabilities are discovered and always fixed in the newest
>kernel, which would make it prudent to always run the very latest, or is
>it merely a question of inclusion of new drivers and ever greater
>hardware support?
>If anything serious was discovered I suppose Pat would issue a patch like
>he did with 12.2.
a patch before it was in the upstream kernel.
>
>As I'm running this on a laptop with AlienBOB's efg firewall script and
>no open ports, is there a benefit to using the latest 3.x kernels or can
>I just as well stick to what I've got, a la if it ain't broke...?
Well yes, why risk breaking it? OTOH you can add more kernel versions
>As I'm running this on a laptop with AlienBOB's efg firewall script and
>no open ports, is there a benefit to using the latest 3.x kernels or can
>I just as well stick to what I've got, a la if it ain't broke...?
to lilo.conf (or the other booter) to make sure you can always boot
into a working kernel after an upgrade. Make sure you don't lock out
earlier kernel versions until the latest one is running properly.
Some kernel examples here: <http://bugs.id.au/kernel/boxen/>
Included are the .config, dmesg and lilo.conf files for various
machines and kernel version.
Grant.
>
>TIA
>
>Barnaby
Petri Kaukasoina
May 15, 2012, 8:41:39 AM5/15/12
to
barnabyh <inv...@address.org> wrote:
>As I'm running this on a laptop with AlienBOB's efg firewall script and
>no open ports, is there a benefit to using the latest 3.x kernels or can
>I just as well stick to what I've got, a la if it ain't broke...?
There could be some progress in performance. Take a glance at these
>As I'm running this on a laptop with AlienBOB's efg firewall script and
>no open ports, is there a benefit to using the latest 3.x kernels or can
>I just as well stick to what I've got, a la if it ain't broke...?
pages:
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.4
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.3
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.2
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.1
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.0
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_39
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_38
barnabyh
May 15, 2012, 3:48:21 PM5/15/12
to
Thanks everybody, great stuff. I think I'll be staying with 2.6.39.4
then, nice to have wifi with just the firmware dropped in.
Grant: I'll be checking out your configs!
regards,
Barnabyh
then, nice to have wifi with just the firmware dropped in.
Grant: I'll be checking out your configs!
regards,
Barnabyh
barnabyh
May 15, 2012, 5:34:14 PM5/15/12
to
kernel also worked with brcm80211 firmware once I got rid of the broadcom-
sta package, but it was really flaky.
Much better with the new kernel. And it seems somewhere along the line
the whole process shaved 20MB of ram off too.
Barnabyh
0 new messages