Christian Hettler wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 12:31:22PM +0200, Ghislain wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Not sure whether you're interested in the "No" answers ...
>>
>> yes i am also :) The goal is to know if people use the new and if
>> not why (i guess the why is the same for a lot of us: need to reboot
>> = downtime, upgrade util vserver to match and it works right now
>> so.....).
>>
>
> 2.6.18-5-vserver-amd64
> ~# vserver-stat
> CTX PROC VSZ RSS userTIME sysTIME UPTIME NAME
> 0 59 223.7M 23.9M 46d13h41 13d05h31 4y66d18 root server
> 140 34 15.9+ 161.7M 22h18m43 3h39m37 271d23h00 vs-guest140
> 141 27 874.1M 60.8M 5h43m10 2h08m59 16d21h46 vs-guest141
> 142 11 1.2G 482.6M 7h13m18 5h18m46 335d00h59 vs-guest142
>
> not much workload.
I'll top that ;-) and even more workload here ;-)
2.6.18-5-vserver-686
~# vserver-stat
CTX PROC VSZ RSS userTIME sysTIME UPTIME NAME
0 68 99M 7.6M 167d21h56 193d05h59 4y93d23 root server
2065 137 2.4G 501.4M 38d10h06 7d16h29 3y21d10 vs065
49208 9 540.4M 53.2M 5d13h50 7h31m11 3y21d10 vs208
49209 9 509.2M 27M 1d10h06 3h41m35 3y21d10 vs209
49210 19 586.1M 76.6M 2d13h59 2h59m52 3y21d10 vs210
pretty stable - huh? :)
back to $subject:
I'm running almost any combination of 2.6.3x, 3.0.x, 3.2.x and yet even
one 3.3.1 in production.
Mostly, any new Kernel and/or current vserver-patches are compiled and
installed right away on the hosts but not booted into.. Unless there's
some wierdness going on with the current Kernel, they'll become active the
next (un)scheduled downtime - which mostly is soon enough ;-)
Christian
Received on Thu Apr 5 16:26:20 2012