Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1

    Production environment: kenerl 2.4.x or 2.6.x?


    This is my first post to this list.
    I already read the instructions, and I think this is the most appropriate list.
    If I am in error, please, excuse me for the mistake, and forward me to the appropriate list.

    Here is my question:

    I'm setting up a new server to be used as web (with php), mail, dns, samba, mysql and ftp server.
    I need to customize it a lot, so I thought starting from a distribution like Debian, old Redhat 9, or Fedora, then manually upgrading kernel and all of the services to one of the newest versions, applying some patches from different sources in order to have the system customized as we need.

    I am in difficulties trying to choose the starting point, so, before starting, I'd want to listen from other people's idea, too.

    Particularly about the kernel.

    We are almost paranoid about security.
    So I thought to use the last 2.4 kernel (actually 2.4.27), instead of the 2.6 kernel (actually 2.6.7).
    This because I am worried about the fact the new 2.6 kernel could contain some security bugs dued to the new features it offers.
    (Note that, for our needs, none of the new features provided in the 2.6 kernel is needed in our actual environment).

    Am I right with my thinking, or am I in error?
    Which kernel would you use for an environment like that described above?

    In the case you say me: "you're right, by now still try to use the 2.4 kernel", please tell me: could I be in troubles during the time, for example maintaining updated the services? (For example, Fedora, which is actually well maintained, runs against 2.6 kernel, not 2.4, so, I think, I won't can use the Fedora updating list for keeping my server updated).

    What do you think about these troubles?

    Any idea appreciated.

    Thank you in advance.

    Best regards,

  2. #2
    Linux Guru kkubasik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Lat: 39:03:51N Lon: 77:14:37W
    If you need none of the fetures offered, then i guess the NSA's 2.4 kernel might be a good bet, but 2.6.x also addressed several security issues in its release. It is very unlikly that the kernel will provide a security hole, its 20x more likly one of those services will. but if you are a 'anal' sysadmin, strong passwords, and appropriate user privliages are the best security you can get. I have found that the 2.6 kernel offers far superior performance, and its multitasking support (ie several server processes on one machine) is much more efficent. Thats a personal observation, I havnt't any benchmarks to back it up. Of your distro choices I would have to recommend debian, i find the RH's / FC's to be bloated.
    Avoid the Gates of Hell. Use Linux
    A Penny for your Thoughts

    Formerly Known as qub333

  3. #3
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    I agree that nsa's 2.4 kernel is very good for security but 2.6 kernel is good too and is faster and more stable i think.The choise is yours and if you can test them and choose

  4. $spacer_open
  5. #4
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Houston Texas
    You don't really feel the difference if you are a personal user like me. I use 2.6.x because MIT/GNU Scheme won't run under kernel 2.4.x.

  6. #5
    Linux Engineer Giro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Use the 2.4.x kernels in production the 2.6.x kernel is considered under active development and thus not stable. Theres loads of articals about not having a 2.7.x branch and they are both working on the 2.6.x as the development kernel.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts