Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:43:23 +0100 From: Thomas Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability Message-ID: <20030103154323.GA454@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <20030103084232.GA3371@localhost.bsd.net.il> References: <200212170023.gBH0Nvlu000764@beast.csl.sri.com> <20030103000232.GA52181@blazingdot.com> <Pine.GSO.4.51.0301021738490.19685@xmission.xmission.com> <20030103062708.GA426@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20030103084232.GA3371@localhost.bsd.net.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Nimrod Mesika (nimrod-me@bezeqint.net):
[Uptime]
> Think about compute servers. Our CAD servers can run simulations and
> other types of processes for ~40 hours. You definitely don't want to
> interrupt a running system and it finding some idle time for service
> gets really difficult.
Of course not. But these are probably neither publicly accessible nor
'monitored' by Netcraft and thus not subject to public 'uptime-size'
wars.
> Would be nice if you could upgrade subsystems one at a time. This
> way one could, for example, shutdown the network subsystem, load
> the new version and restart it.
Sounds like what microkernels were designed for.
> And uptimes are not important. Downtimes *are*.
Yes. Especially the unscheduled ones.
--Thomas
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030103154323.GA454>