Is pve-kernel-3.10.0-1 considered stable?

[bleomycin]

I just did a fresh install of proxmox and noticed pve-kernel-3.10.0-1-pve is available in the non-testing repo. Is this considered stable now? Is there a changelog of improvements/fixes that apply to proxmox? Thanks.

 

[dietmar]

Is this considered stable now?

No, this is just for testing.

 

[m.ardito]

Is there a changelog of improvements/fixes that apply to proxmox? Thanks.

see http://download.proxmox.com/debian/...64/pve-kernel-3.10.0-1-pve_3.10.0-5.changelog

Marco

 

[bleomycin]

see http://download.proxmox.com/debian/...64/pve-kernel-3.10.0-1-pve_3.10.0-5.changelog

Marco

Excellent thanks. I'm guessing there will be a post somewhere in this forum once it is considered stable?

 

[Milkwyrm]

I've been using it on an old test server Since it was posted. running a couple of Windows desktops (XP & Win7) and it's been rock solid the whole time. I actually think the machine runs faster on this kernel. Obviously there is no OpenVZ, but I dont use that in test.

 

[tom]

This kernel is based on RHEL7 beta. So we need to wait to a stable RHEL7 release, expected mid 2014.

 

[lifeboy]

This kernel is based on RHEL7 beta. So we need to wait to a stable RHEL7 release, expected mid 2014.

You realise you posted this past "mid 2014"... Any update on the RHEL7 kernel stability status?

 

[spirit]

You realise you posted this past "mid 2014"... Any update on the RHEL7 kernel stability status?

RHEL7 has been released some month ago now,

I'm running the pve-kernel-3.10.0-4 kernel in production since 2months without problem. (but no openvz support yet)

 

[Mitya]

You realise you posted this past "mid 2014"... Any update on the RHEL7 kernel stability status?

Still no OpenVZ and some bugs present. See for example http://forum.proxmox.com/threads/19194-VM-start-problem-with-virtio-net

 

[lifeboy]

So if I don't use OpenVZ containers and avoid the virtio netdrivers, are there any other known issues? btrfs is stable with kernel 3.13, so I would need that if I use more ceph OSD's with btrfs.

 

[Mitya]

So if I don't use OpenVZ containers and avoid the virtio netdrivers, are there any other known issues?

No, after few months of active usage I didn't seen any other problems.
But not using virtio drivers may be bad idea on some workloads. I had webserver stuck with network IRQ processing on VM with virtual e1000 dev, where virtio-net done just fine.

btrfs is stable with kernel 3.13, so I would need that if I use more ceph OSD's with btrfs.

Who said you that? Didn't found any info where btrfs considered stable. Lastest CEPH docs still recommends xfs for production environments.
If you seeking for adventures, then you can try kernels from Debian wheezy-backports repo. There's currently 3.16, but you may experience some unexpected troubles with installing and using it in PVE. Maybe better to wait for Debian jessie and PVE 4.0 (I think somewhere around middle of next year). BTW, in 3.16 bug I mentioned is fixed.

 

[lifeboy]

Who said you that? Didn't found any info where btrfs considered stable.

According to https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page#Stability_status, the file system is stable. For the tools one needs a late kernel 3.13 preferably or later, hence my question.

 

[Mitya]

According to https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page#Stability_status, the file system is stable. For the tools one needs a late kernel 3.13 preferably or later, hence my question.

"The filesystem disk format is no longer unstable" means that you can be sure that filesystem created with latest btrfstool will run on any more recent kernel. Filesystem still under development, which means that in any moment new cool bugs can be introduced, so usage in production environments still not recommended, even with 3.17.