From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 19 22:21:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA20932 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:21:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA20927 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:21:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id GAA13022; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 06:20:09 GMT Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:20:09 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Joe Greco cc: dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.2 Stability (was Re: another victim..) In-Reply-To: <199702200134.TAA09095@solaria.sol.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Joe Greco wrote: > > I've been running 2.2 since it was "current" with apache for 5 months and > > it's *never* fallen over. The longest uptime was around 65 days, but that > > was because it was taken down for kernel updates. > > > > The web serving load isn't very high though, httpd is generating about > > 30MB of logs every month. > > I don't think I've seen any instances of 2.2 truly falling over, either, > although there are times where it seems to "pause" during heavy VM activity > that doesn't happen with 2.1.X. It's been hard to quantify precisely. > > I am not trying to say that 2.2 is bad, I'm just saying that its track > record (no matter how good) is not very long. I didn't think you were actually, I was just adding a data point. Your advice is sound, I live on the edge a little bit picking out stable builds and installing them in production sites that handle moderate loads. Regards, Mike