I'd like to compile my own kernel, since those rpms are usually very slow from RedHat, eg. some bugs in 2.4.28 that were found in half november were solved on 12/2 by redhat:

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-549.html

What I want to know is, is it really "dangerou" to compile a kernel from source?

Isn't it just choosing a config, compiling, creating a a bootimage, copying it to boot, adding it to grub and done?

Or could it screw up the OS?

In the end, if it doesn't boot, I could always reboot the box with the old kernel..

Anyone knows if there are any dangerous parts?

I know the basics of linux and I'm very familiar with hardware, so most things in make menuconfig are ok for me.. :)

Recompiling kernel is a critical part however if something goes wrong you can always boot to the old kernel. No system binaries get affected.

Originally posted by KingAdmin
Recompiling kernel is a critical part however if something goes wrong you can always boot to the old kernel. No system binaries get affected.

Thank you for your helpfull response, truely appreciated mate!

What is the critical part?

So, let say something happened during the make dep part (dependencies) and I ignored it or didnt look good etc. it does not affect the OS etc?

I don't want to end up with a screwed OS and have to reinstall everything... I don't have problems with an unbootable kernel though, cause, I could always switch to an older kernel.. :)

Can't imagine no one can answer the question for me ;)

The critical part is booting into the new kernel. Often times, NIC drivers may be left out causing the NIC to not work upon bootup. If you haven't recompiled a kernel before, I would strongly recemmend that you DO NOT attempt this on a production server.

A lot of people fear compiling a kernel, and to be honest, its not a good idea to stear away from the distributions kernel unless totally necessary. Then again, if your paying redhat for their product, you should be able to get them to assist you with whatever issues you might have.

With regards, to redhat taking a while to release a new kernel..

Well their release is heavily modified. For instance, with rhel, its labled as 2.4.* but has a lot of the 2.6 kernel incorperated into it. Thus, updates will require at the very least 1. reviewing the new source and changes as released by kernel.org, 2. writting those changes into their source 3. ensureing the kernel works.

I like the fact they do take a bit of time to ensure its working solid, though of course its not trouble free.

If your looking to install a kernel on rhel3, i'd go with the 2.6 branch, as you'll probably get a performance decrease and come into issues with 2.4.

I think the 2.6 branch is excellent myself, however its now also the development branch ( notice there is no 2.7 ? ), there was an article on slashdot a while back with more details than i can provide. That said, its proven reletively stable for us when we need to use it.

Make sure you hammer it out on a test box prior to rolling it on a production box of course. Just so you can get a basic grip of what might go wrong or so you just know what your doing when you roll it out. There are also how-to's / guides for the 2.6 branch in the tutorial section of this forum, might be worth a quick check to make sure you have everything you need in place before you make the big move.