|Differnce between 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 Kernels|
| 1:02 pm on Jan 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I notice that I'm running Debian with Kernel 2.2
Is this outdated? What's the difference between 2.2 and 2.6?
Is it worth upgrading to 2.6?
I'm moving to a new server in a few days. It has been suggested that the easiest way to move the data is to take the disk out of the old server, put it in the new and let Linux sort out the drivers for the new hardware.
That sounds a good move as I have done similar to that with Ghost and Windows, i.e. the OS identifies new hardware and reconfigures itself. The whole point of doing this is that I don't have to reload all my data and extra packages onto the new server. I don't have to spend a few hours configuring files and setting user accounts and passwords etc.
Will this method work with Debian 3.0, 2.2 Kernel going from a 2Ghz P4 server to a 3.06Ghz with all that Hyper Threading stuff?
| 1:58 pm on Jan 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
2.2? Good grief man, that's still in the 90s =P
And yes, that's the easiest way of doing things, however, there is an even easier way that I use.
First off, if I run a file/webb/ftp server, I make sure that I have separate partitions for the files and system. So I have atleast two partitions, one mounted as the root system and one mounted as the file repository. This is so that if something screws up mayorly, I can always resort to reinstalling everything and reformat the system partition without much loss of data at all.
This also gives the added bonus that if I want to get a new server, all I have to do is to exchange discs and if I for some reason or other can't boot the kernel I can always reinstall it. As long as the hardware is similar in both machines you shouldn't have much problems though.
As for 2.2 vs 2.4 vs 2.6... You can get the 2.4 kernel from install by writing "bf24" from start. The problem with Debian Stable is that it's like, 2 years outdated, but it's well tested and secure. If you really feel up to it, upgrade to 2.6 but be aware that you have to compile it yourself. 2.6 is a whole lot faster, got better Hardware support and stuff, so I consider it worth it, but it's your choice.
Oh, and also, if it's not broke, don't fix it. If your 2GHz can handle your needs, no need to upgrade, it can probably last you a couple more years. =)
| 2:08 pm on Jan 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Am I reading the version right?
Linux ****116 2.2.20-idepci #1 Sat Apr 20 12:45:19 EST 2002 i686 GNU/Linux
So it is steam age stuff?
This puts me off doing a disk swap
BTW, I won't be doing this. It's a dedicated server so the hoster techies will be performing it.
Thinking about it, I'd much rather have a more upto date Debian put on the new box and then upload and configure the data and extra progs.
I just don't like the idea running an O/S which was created before all this new P4 Hyperthreading technology was created.
BTW, it aint broke, just too slow for new development I want to run on it, and I can get this new 3Ghz at roughly the same price I'm paying for the 2Ghz + double ram + double disks.
| 2:06 pm on Jan 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well, if you feel that you need to upgrade, then of course you should. Just making sure so you're not upgrading just because it's cool. ;)
And yeah, the best and easiest option (especially if it's a server in use) would be if you just simply transferred everything via Ethernet after you've set that other machine up. Just remember to run bf24 when installing the new machine, and remember that Woody is rock solid, even though Sarge is much more up-to-date.
| 1:02 am on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There are a couple of reasons why you might not want to upgrade your kernel. (mind you, I'm compiling 2.6.1-rc3 right now) The one that immediately occurrs to me is that although for the most part hardware support imprives as you move up the version numbers, that isn't always true. For example, I know for sure that with 2.2 kernels one of my ethernet cards worked, and in 2.4+ the card is simply not supported.