Hi,

Its very true that you lose out on RedHat's support for a recompiled
kernel, but if you maintain the latest version of the kernel, you should
get the latest fixes, whatever they may be.

I personally have been using Redhat with my own kernel for about 10
years or so (RedHat 5.2) and have never had a kernel related issue.  As
far as performance goes, if you remove all of the unnecessary modules
from the kernel, and build it to work with the hardware you have,  it
will run faster because the available kernels are built to run on
generic processors.  If you take a i386 kernel and run it on a Pentium
4, you lose out on all optimizations for the faster processor.

Harold

John Summerfield wrote:
> Christoph P. Kukulies wrote:
>
>>
>> and a question mark at the and of this sentence.
>> (sorry for the typos)
>>> What are your concerns?
>>
>> My concerns were if SL x runs optimally on a pair of these quad core
>> processors or whether some tweaking would be required. And as someone
>> already said, the kernel should be adapted. 
>
> Harold said he builds his own, and that it can be optimised for your 
> processor.
>
> I'd want to see performance figures before I accepted that doing that 
> is actually beneficial.
>
> By doing that, you lose Red Hat's support of your kernel, you don't 
> get its security updates, you don't any extra features Red Hat adds 
> and you don't get the benefits of Red Hat's QA.[1]
>
> Using kernels from kernel.org is a bit like using Fedora, there are 
> times it's appropriate, but not if you want the system to come up 
> first time, every time, and to stay up all the time, every time.
>
>
> [1] It's true that in using a RHEL clone, those benefits are diluted 
> somewhat, but the source code our vendors get from RH is what RH used 
> to build its packages. We still benefit from RH's work.
>
>