17 Jun
2019
17 Jun
'19
4:10 a.m.
On 06/13/2019 02:56 AM, BorgLabs - Kate Draven wrote:
Thanks
David,
This is my thinking as well. I have no real bleeding edge tech, I tend to stay
away from it. Just wanted to challenge me decision , in case I was wrong.
Kate
HI
=20
I would like everyone's opinion on this.
=20
I'm trying figure out the benefits of either staying with the LTS kerne=
l
or=20
with the lastest kernel. The machines are every
day use and stability i=
s=20
important.=20
=20
Am I tossing away any benefits, of the latest kernel, if I use the 4.8x=
/9x=20
kernel. Or do the benefits of the 5.1x kernel out
weigh any instability=
?=20
=20
I'd like all schools of thought.
=20
Thanks in advance,
=20
Kate
Kate,
Unless you have super-new bleeding-edge hardware that needs a new featu=
re
added in 5.1 that is not available in previous versions -- then 5.1 provi=
des
absolutely no benefit. Any tweak that 5.1 provided to help with Spectre
performance mitigation, etc.. will likely be backported and in a LTS kern=
el.
I have Arch (that always runs the current upstream version of the kerne=
l,
5.1.9 currently), and Arch also provides an LTS kernel using 4.19. I have=
a
SuSE leap 42.3 install running the 4.4 kernel, SuSE leap 15.0/15.1 instal=
ls
with the 4.12 version, I have a Pi running Debian/jessie with the 4.9 ARM
kernel, and from a general computing/feature/functionality standpoint, it
makes no difference.
Now if you have bleeding-edge hardware that is only supported in the la=
test
greatest kernel -- then yes, there is a difference, otherwise you won't k=
now
the difference.
HTH
--=20
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------