From owner-freebsd-alpha Tue Jun 22 1:49:18 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4322015286 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:49:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from localhost (dfr@localhost) by herring.nlsystems.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA51685; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:50:38 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:50:37 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson To: David Miller Cc: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General stability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, David Miller wrote: > I've been lurking on the list for a few days now and haven't seen any > discussion of this. The status page on the freebsd.org server just says: > > The alpha port status page has been removed now that the port has > progressed to the stage that anything not in proper working order can > be treated as a bug instead of work-in-progress. > > So the question I'm asking is whether the aplha kernel developers feel the > alpha port is stable enough to "bet the farm on". I run a website on > which we expect to see 5-10 million hits/day (spread amongst several > servers) with database access, cgi scripts with some sql lookups - a very > dynamic site. I need the same kind of triple digit uptimes I'm used to > with FreeBSD and other unices. > > Is the alpha port at this stage yet, or am I safer sticking to x86 for the > time being? I think that the alpha port is pretty solid right now but I haven't run any systems under this kind of load. I would be very interested in hearing about how the port stands up in this situation. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message