top | item 42395945

(no title)

SirGiggles | 1 year ago

That's a fair point and I don't disagree. I guess my main point of contention was the implication that either a) ZFS wasn't stable on anything non-LTS or b) the Linux kernels themselves were unstable outside of a LTS.

What stable means in this case is subject to individual use cases. In my case, I don't find having to wait a bit for ZFS to catch up despite being on an EOL kernel to be catastrophic, but after having some time to think, I can see why someone would need an LTS kernel.

discuss

order

hamandcheese|1 year ago

I think we are on the same page. To clarify: if your goal is to be on stable ZFS AND non-EOL Linux kernel, then LTS kernel is usually the only option. There may be windows where there are non-LTS-non-EOL kernels supported, but non-LTS kernels go EOL very quickly, so those windows are fleeting.

This impacts distributions like NixOS in particular, which have a strict policy of removing EOL kernels.

SirGiggles|1 year ago

I wasn't aware NixOS prunes EOL kernels, thanks for letting me know; this throws a bit of wrench/damper in my personal machine plans.