Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:13:39 +0400 From: "Mikhail A. Sokolov" <mishania@demos.net> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another ufs panic.. Message-ID: <19990328201339.A14768@demos.su> In-Reply-To: <36FE4857.14E19467@newsguy.com>; from "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> on Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:18:47AM %2B0900 References: <199903281420.AAA18161@cheops.anu.edu.au> <36FE4857.14E19467@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:18:47AM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: # > ...there have been substantial ufs improvements in 3.x, yes ? # No. Nobody has been complaining about ufs. Hell, that's the fs we # all use. We wouldn't be *able* to do anything if it was so buggy. You didn't look into at least 2 month old archives, did you? Pardon to comment in such a useless way, but it sometimes hurt people wouldn't read before answering. Darren, people who moved from 2.x to 3.x-stable are reporting nicely about their systems, might be you should as well. Again, why did you use pax but cpio and such? # Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) # dcs@freebsd.org -- -mishania P.S. isn't this a -stable matter? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990328201339.A14768>