Feedback on linux-xanmod kernel testing

Yes, though it’s no good having a default kernel that doesn’t work well on a wide range of systems (see the various threads on the forum about the TKG kernel).

We know linux-zen works reliably, and that linux-tkg-* does not, so linux-xanmod should definitely be tested. I might also throw linux-lqx into the ring here…

TKG kernel selector could always be added as an Assistant application, so it picks and installs the most appropriate for your CPU; that way people shouldn’t get random issues when they use the wrong variant.

4 Likes

There should be an option in the installer for you to manually choose which kernel to install.

1 Like

Well i agree, great point. So linux-zen like default kernel and if anyone want could install TKG or Xanmod.

Or download section should contain variants ISO with linux-tkg-bmq, linux-xanmod, linux-zen.
Zen - If you don't know what use.
TKG - If you want more gaming performance, but virtualization could have issue or something. (more unstable like Zen)
Xanmod - If you want more overall performance and working virtualization, but could be unstable (more unstable like Zen)

But more ISOs, more work for devs. :worried:

Yes, it sounds like best solution.

Okay Maybe something Like

Select your Kernel:

Linux-Zen (Default); Balanced kernel for everyday usage.

Linux-Tkg-bmq More Gaming performance worst virtualization less stable than linux-zen.

Linux-Xanmod Best overall performance and working virtualization least stable.

2 Likes

Yes, it sounds great. So we should wait what devs will say now.

1 Like

I’m definitely 100% in agreement with this. The TKG kernels while excellent for performance seem to bring far more incompatibilities with users hardware. The number of users that couldn’t even boot their system properly rose steeply after the switch to the TKG kernel.

From my years of offering support advice on Linux forums I’d say the single most likely fix I’ve found in the highest percentage of cases is simply switching kernels. I’ve made the suggestion before, that several different KDE editions should use different default kernels. That way if a user has big issues and can’t boot on one kernel they can test an another edition with an alternate kernel. My first choice would be the Zen kernel on the majority of editions, and then use the LTS kernel (for those that have issues booting) used on an a different KDE edition.

6 Likes

Does LTS kernels support for modern hardware especially laptops? I heard about some incompatibilities on modern CPUs, GPUs, keyboards, motherboards, because LTS only brings fixes and security patches. It doesn't bring later hardware support, it could be tricky on distro for gaming purpouse when i expect users use modern - gaming hardware.
ISOs with Zen, LTS and TKG could be great choice. At time when Garuda was using Zen i've never run sucesfully any game from Steam, after Garuda switch to tkg-bmq my laptop runs much better and i can run games from Steam.

If we want to satisfy more users, we need use more kernels.

1 Like

Here are my findings in regard to the xanmod kernel:

On the gaming system, I’m happily used xanmod, had no issues yet. The working machine generally has issues on some kernels, even linux-lts crashed yesterday. However, I have noticed that my Bios was out of date, so I’m continuing testing xanmod and zen on this machine with an updated Bios right now.

1 Like

Yes, this is exactly what i mean. LTS kernel doesn't guarantee avoid issues. Yes LTS could be more stable, but remember Garuda is simply Arch, we can't achieve more stability than Arch.

If we want Garuda usable on more hardware configurations, Garuda should ships with different kernels. linux-zen, linux-lts, linux-tkg-bmq and linux-xanmod.

But i have seriously worry if Xanmod good for Arch, yes we can do experiments. Research how much users runs Xanmod on Arch without issues, would be good.

Let me visualize issue with kernels by the sets. Green area represent perfect hardware configurations for run every kernel what we tried in the past, or will try in the future.

Solution? Just ship Garuda with different kernels and every user can chose best fully function variant for self hardware configuration. :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

That’s a huge amount of extra effort! :sweat_smile:

If there was a post-install kernel selection option that would be a better option - then you have a kernel installed that works, the user can install another kernel and see if that works better, but the working kernel is always available.

A kernel selector is still more effort, but it’s less over time than building and maintaining 3x the number of installer images!

4 Likes

What about an option in the installer?

The issue there is that the user could easily pick a non-working kernel and then blame the installer rather than themselves. Let's get the system installed so it works, then if the user makes changes afterwards it's easier to find the cause.

6 Likes

Maybe in the setup assistant that opens up when you first log in.

Yes,

That needs someone to create the code. :wink:

3 Likes

IDK how to code all my merge requests were in the iso-profiles.

7 Likes

I fully endorse this. Being working in IT projects for the past 16 years at a financial institution I can tell you that THAT above will happen and more than just a few times. The result could well be people joining the forum and firing at devs and maintainers. Some people are really good at that, unfortunately.

I believe the requirement here is that something should allow Garuda to install with the most probable working kernel for as much default use cases as possible and from there with the choices of kernels a user can later, or with an evident warning during installation, swap to another kernel as he/she wishes.

Now I understand that may not be easy and there will be compromises, possibly, I cannot help much finding the right solution but I can certainly explain what I just did. lol

4 Likes

My thinking regarding having the Zen and LTS kernels available on different ISO's is as follows. The Zen kernel seems the most problem free kernel that is already optimized for performance on the widest spectrum of modern hardware. It boots the majority of the newest hardware.

The LTS kernel is not ancient, but it has better compatibility with hardware that is a little older. While that is not Garuda's target audience many users are installing Garuda on older hardware. If the help requests on the forum are any indication this segment is far larger than you'd expect.

The LTS is a good choice for troubleshooting purposes. An ISO using a newer kernel may not boot for some users (or perhaps their wifi or other important driver may be broken). Having the LTS on an alternate ISO allows a user to test a live environment to diagnose if recent kernel changes are causing their problems.

The barebones editions are built with the LTS kernel sometimes, but this is not a good choice for installation for most users. I sometimes suggest using a barebones image for users with boot problems and this suggestion often cures their issue. However, the problem with that is, I would only suggest this with very experienced users. Newbies will not know how to configure their system from a base barebones install image. The other problem with this is that no support is provided for the barebones editions (and newbies often require support).

The main objective from my viewpoint is that Garuda should make available several different ISO's that will boot properly with the majority of hardware out there. IMO Garuda should use the modern Zen kernel for good performance and compatibility, and the older LTS kernel on another full featured edition for those that can't boot correctly using a Zen kernel.

To my way of thinking the priority should be given to provide a kernel with good performance, but that also has widespread hardware compatability. Along with the LTS kernel available on one other edition to cover the scenario where a newer kernel creates boot (or other serious) issues.

Installing more specialized performance kernels can always be done by the user afterwards, as long as they can get their rig up and running with more universally compatible kernel that at least boots for them.

It is simply too much work to produce and maintain a bunch of different kernels running a variety of different kernels. Shoehorning multiple extra kernels into every install ISO will enlarge the size the install ISO's greatly. So it's all a compromise between a modern performant kernel, widespread hardware compatability, bloated install images, and creating too much work for the distro Devs.

Not an easy juggling feat, so it's a hard issue to solve. If it was easily accomplished every good distro out there would have already done so. Just my 2 bits, FWIW.

9 Likes