Linux vs Linux-lts

VinceNardelli · 2017-11-04 19:51:46

Hello guys,
I am curious to know how much of an impact would be installing and using Kernel-lts give compared to the default Kernel ?

I know Kernel is released and updated every month or so and this can lead to unwelcoming breaking ups the machine if not careful. (Ok, I had a bad experience and I couldn't boot my PC after an update).

Generally talking, for an expert user who has been using Arch for years: does the Long Term Support package of Kernel provide the stability to be expected from a daily driver machine?

I know many of these sorts of decision should come to the experience of the user, but I read it should be one of the things to do right after Arch is installed: to sacrifice a little bit of security for a much higher stability.

Thank you for the answers!

best of luck!

Alad · 2017-11-04 20:00:22

-lts updates just as often, sometimes more often than the regular kernel. So if you want to keep up with security updates you'll need to reboot every 1-2 weeks either way.

As to the "expected stability", both break. The main difference is if you use proprietary software like old AMD drivers or VMWare that lag behind on kernel changes.

Last edited by Alad (2017-11-04 20:01:04)

seth · 2017-11-04 20:22:25

Sane strategy is to install both - if there's a show stopping regression in one (usually the new one), you still got the other around to boot and work with untill the regression of the first has been fixed.

fsckd · 2017-11-04 21:58:34

Bear in mind that patches to linux often get to linux-lts. An unfixed regression in linux can appear in linux-lts, but after a delay.

VinceNardelli · 2017-11-04 22:32:22

Alad wrote:

-As to the "expected stability", both break. The main difference is if you use proprietary software like old AMD drivers or VMWare that lag behind on kernel changes.

I thought that the main benefit of the -LTS is that packages have enough time to "adjast" to cartain kernel features, therefore making it more stable and less likely to break.

hussam · 2017-11-04 22:37:01

I started using the LTS kernel simply because of the nvidia proprietary driver which occasionally breaks on new kernels. 4.9LTS is also sufficient for skylake machines.
For example, nvidia proprietary driver works perfectly on 4.9LTS, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 but I had hibernation issues when testing on 4.13.10. Luckily those particular issues don't appear under 4.14rc7 which will become the next LTS. This also means I would have skipped 4.13.xx.
If you are using Intel graphics though, the latest Linux kernel is mostly the same stability.
Generally speaking, out of tree modules are the main reason why you may need a LTS kernel.
New hardware may require new kernels and support for new hardware is rarely backported to LTS kernels.

VinceNardelli · 2017-11-04 22:53:34

There you go... I have a nvidia card and experienced some annoyances with the latest kernel. Now with the LTS it seems fine but hope it will continue.
A bit off topic here, but do installing microcodes for intel help improve stability?

jasonwryan · 2017-11-04 23:11:32

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Microcode

cfr · 2017-11-05 01:13:19

I've never heard that the LTS kernel is less secure. Impressionistic perception: LTS gets more updates than the current kernel. However, I have no idea if that is true.

Having both installed provides a fallback. Somewhat useful for stability.

More useful for stability: know what to do when neither boots your hardware normally.

Versioned kernels on Arch would be nice, though .

eschwartz · 2017-11-05 02:38:14

cfr wrote:

Versioned kernels on Arch would be nice, though .

It certainly would.

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702 is currently held up by the fact that the UEFI standard stupidly relies on incompetent garbage like FAT32 which does not support symlinks.

Alad · 2017-11-05 09:38:30

VinceNardelli wrote:

Alad wrote:
-As to the "expected stability", both break. The main difference is if you use proprietary software like old AMD drivers or VMWare that lag behind on kernel changes.
I thought that the main benefit of the -LTS is that packages have enough time to "adjast" to cartain kernel features, therefore making it more stable and less likely to break.

I assume you mean adjust, but no, you can't make the general claim that it breaks less. Just on the one aspect I mentioned, being proprietary software.

Arch Linux

#1 2017-11-04 19:51:46

Linux vs Linux-lts

#2 2017-11-04 20:00:22

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#3 2017-11-04 20:22:25

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#4 2017-11-04 21:58:34

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#5 2017-11-04 22:32:22

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#6 2017-11-04 22:37:01

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#7 2017-11-04 22:53:34

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#8 2017-11-04 23:11:32

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#9 2017-11-05 01:13:19

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#10 2017-11-05 02:38:14

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

#11 2017-11-05 09:38:30

Re: Linux vs Linux-lts

Board footer