From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Apr  8 09:51:23 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id JAA18499
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 09:51:23 -0700
Received: from ns1.win.net (ns1.win.net [204.215.209.3])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA18492
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 09:51:22 -0700
Received: (from bugs@localhost) by ns1.win.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA28299 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 12:54:45 -0400
From: Mark Hittinger <bugs@ns1.win.net>
Message-Id: <199504081654.MAA28299@ns1.win.net>
Subject: Happy Happy snap-0322
To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 12:54:44 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 886       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


A report from my front line is that snap-0322 is working very well compared
to snap-0210.  I was hesitant to upgrade at first because the -current 
machine that I run gave me bad vibes for awhile.

snap-0322 is running on my primary server and has stayed up for a longer
duration than snap-0210.  I could count on rebooting or finding out about
a reboot every 48 hours under snap-0210.  Hasn't happened yet on the latest
snap.

It seems to be zippier too.  Thanks guys.  

FreeBSD-current has also seemed much more zippy and stable since the
middle of last week.

I had the chance to benchmark windows/nt as an internet server on the
same hardware configuration.  NT gives roughly half the throughput of
the 3/22 snap (thats with the NTFS not FAT so I may be a cheater).  I
am talking about a bunch of simultaneous FTP, WEB, and Gopher sessions.

Regards,

Mark Hittinger
bugs@win.net