Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:22:49 -0300 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: "Michael R. Wayne" <freebsd@wayne47.com> Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support Message-ID: <200612222122.50217.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20061222051513.GK63341@manor.msen.com> References: <000801c723bb$efc2b540$260ba8c0@wii.wintecind.com> <200612220259.kBM2xYxc019408@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <20061222051513.GK63341@manor.msen.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 22 December 2006 02:15, Michael R. Wayne wrote: > FreeBSD 4.11 can survive a simple burn-in test. =A0FreeBSD 5.X and > 6.1 can not. =A0Here's what I wrote earlier. > burn-in usually is a hardware test and not a software test > =A0 =A0Take a server. =A0Configure for SMP, add quotas within jails and > =A0 =A0basic IPFW protection with a few hundred dummynet pipes for b/w > =A0 =A0throttling (less than 10,000 total IPFW lines). =A0Load the machine > =A0 =A0a bit so that it constantly maintains a 3 digit load and run > =A0 =A0sufficient active processes to keep it in moderate swap state. let's then qualify cars by how much miles they stand with a flat tire ... a= ny=20 practical value here? So anybody tries to get a server away from swap and y= ou=20 keep it in swap state ... funny theories you have >=A0 =A0The result of that minimal-effort test yields machines which can >=A0 =A0not maintain 30 days of uptime (most fail in under a week). ahem ... faulty memory or what? http://suporte.matik.com.br/swap-3-year.png =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612222122.50217.joao>