On Monday 17 June 2019 12:10:55 am BorgLabs - Kate Draven wrote: > > On 06/13/2019 02:56 AM, BorgLabs - Kate Draven wrote: > > > 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. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >- > > 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. > The only time it really counts is where you might need millisecond control of a valve. For your stuff, which sounds like a big distributed farming operation, I suspect one second, up to 20 seconds to open/close a valve is essentially a never mind as long as it can be done at whatever temp might be ambient for the valve at the time. Then there are occasionally preempt-rt kernels. This install from a testing version of the LCNC iso, is debian stretch based and has a 4.9.0-9-rt-amd64 kernel, packaged as 4.9.168-1+deb9u2 (2019-05-13) Except for the kernel substitution, its stretch 9.8. It is the lowest latency kernel by at least a magnitude I've every ran a latency-test on, under 20 microseconds, which for this old slow phenom, is downright amazing. I could even run software stepping on it if I wasn't in a hurry. But as far as a routine file copy, its no faster at moving gigabytes around than a stock kernel. But as has been said, unless you have bleeding edge hardware, you will not see a diff. And bleeding edge today, means its some variation of an arm cpu. Sure, there's now a 64 core threadripper rizen cpu's out there from amd, but at the price per, around 3G's a socket, I suspect only going into supercomputers paid for with taxpayer sheckles. So that's not a concern to you or I. > Kate > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > trinity-users-unsubscribe@... For additional > commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@... Read > list messages on the web archive: > http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to > top-post: > http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>