From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul  2 19:11:49 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA16109
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 19:11:49 -0700
Received: from haven.ios.com (haven.ios.com [198.4.75.45])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA16103
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 19:11:47 -0700
Received: (from rashid@localhost) by haven.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id WAA00940; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 22:14:15 -0400
From: "Rashid Karimov." <rashid@haven.ios.com>
Message-Id: <199507030214.WAA00940@haven.ios.com>
Subject: Re: Random Lockups
To: karl@bagpuss.demon.co.uk (Karl Strickland)
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 22:14:14 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199507021953.UAA05828@bagpuss.demon.co.uk> from "Karl Strickland" at Jul 2, 95 08:53:36 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2433      
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

		Hi there,

> 
> > 	Well, allegedly the lock-up could be caused by QUOTAs
> > 	code or "rlogin" command under cirtain circumstances
> > 	( it was reorted here a day ago) .
> > 
> > 	I'm expiriencing the stuff regularly on P90/128Mb/Bustec.
> > 
> > 	Never had the problem with previous SNAP code :(
> > 	
> > 	If any1 here thinks about switching to 205 to run  the
> > 	server - DO NOT DO IT ! The system is not stable :( Alas :(
> 
> This is unfair - realise that 205 does *not* lockup for everyone.  I have
> been running FreeBSD since before 1.0 and before that have used several
> commercial PC UNIX os's.  205 is the most stable OS I have ever had running
> on this box - I have not had a single crash or lockup with it.

	Well... it was explicitly stated here ( the same thread) by some1
	from FreeBSD team that 205 _was never intedted to be stable ;(
	Just a try between 1.5 ( the last most stable version) and 2.1

	One of the design goals for 2.1 is exceptional stability .

	I'm wondering how many ppl here run FreeBSD PCs as _servers. 
	Say 3500-3000 accounts in  /etc/passwd , 50-60 of them on-line
	(average) , everybody has his own WEB page , POP3 and stuff/
	Average 250-280 processes running in the same  time .
	5-6 user partitions with QUOTAs . How stable is _this combination ,
	if any ? IMHO , not very stable ...I run it on different P90 systems
	- not the same brand - so that's definitely not the problem with
	particular HW.

	As a workstation or  server with limited functionality - 
	YES , it IS stable .


> 
> The difficulty is that a particular lockup may only be apparent with your
> particular combination of hardware.  Of course this is a bitch for you,
> and makes the problems difficult to reproduce and fix for everyone else.
> But it also means that you cannot slag off the entire release, just because

	I'm not slagging it ... just expressing my concern. I AM using FreeBSD
	for quite a time in _very crucial _business servers - so I trust it.
	The same time when I c that stability gets worse with _new release
	comparing to  previous SNAP - it bothers me , as well as
	it should bother everybody here.

	The good point is that's hard to imagine _real server w/o any
	problems - Sun or PC under different (commercial) Unix , but
	when it aparently could be tracked to problems w/o OS - the
	tiny part of it - the driver code or subsystem's ( QUOTAs )
	one, it should raise concern.


	Rashid