From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 3 05:51:49 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91DA16A412 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 05:51:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout7.cac.washington.edu (mxout7.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A553E13C4B0 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 05:51:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9] (may be forged)) by mxout7.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP id l435pleU027098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 May 2007 22:51:47 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [192.168.10.45] (c-67-187-164-17.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.187.164.17]) (authenticated authid=youshi10) by smtp.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP id l435pkMH028149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 May 2007 22:51:47 -0700 Message-ID: <46397897.4090907@u.washington.edu> Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:52:23 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: <463932E4.7090707@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <463932E4.7090707@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 5.3.1.294258, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.5.2.223536 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unix friendly network testbench for FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 05:51:49 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > youshi10@u.washington.edu wrote: > >>> I'd go with 4.11 or wait the extra month or so.. >> >> That's true, but unfortunately... >> >> a) 7-CURRENT isn't production quality, but it's getting closer all the >> time. >> b) I need to start work soon, sometime within the next few weeks at >> the latest. I should have thought about this earlier, but it was just >> posed as a thought to me friday. > > > 4.11 is definitly production quality.. > > It won't make it into 7.0. I'm pretty sure. > > WHen 7-x branches this may go into head.. that puts it a feature in 8.0 > > Why do you want to use 7.0? > > of course there is always multiple Xen/vmware/whatever machines. I didn't suggest that I wanted to use 7-CURRENT for production releases. That's entirely based on the devs responses. I'll give the 4.11 release a shot, but I don't like using 4.x because the SMP quality and 64-bit capability is lower than of 5.x and 6.x, and the majority of these tests need to be done with 64-bit capability since all of the machines will be Core2Duo+ capable (and thinking ahead), Quad core+ enabled. -Garrett