From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 19 22:52:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA22401 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA22388 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:52:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.33] by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.59 #1) id 0vxKaM-0000fG-00; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:33:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:33:58 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: Michael Hancock cc: Joe Greco , "David E. Cross" , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.2 Stability (was Re: another victim..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Michael Hancock wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Joe Greco wrote: > > > On the other hand, 2.1.X has been proven by time and fire to be a STABLE > > and RELIABLE OS. My Web server is setting site uptime records: > > > > 2:39PM up 195 days, 23:22, 1 user, load averages: 0.21, 0.18, 0.15 > > I've been running 2.2 since it was "current" with apache for 5 months and > it's *never* fallen over. The longest uptime was around 65 days, but that > was because it was taken down for kernel updates. > > The web serving load isn't very high though, httpd is generating about > 30MB of logs every month. That isn't very much. I've got a 2.1-stable system running for 114 days that accumulates a 150 MB of logs every month, and web serving isn't even its primary service: DNS and mail are. It provides DNS service for over 400 domains. > Regards, > > > Mike Hancock Tom > > In the meantime, there are those of us who are beating the snot (sorry > > for the Karlism) out of 2.2, and it is looking very promising. Hopefully > > it can "prove" itself and take over for 2.1.7 within the next year. But > > I am not going to put all of MY eggs in the 2.2 basket, until I am > > confident that the basket is strong, and was well built, based on firsthand > > experience. > > > > That's why you might wish to install 2.1.7. It's basically a matter of > > faith and reliability. > > > > If you're looking for a desktop OS? Then the picture might be different. > > 2.2 should offer enough of an incentive to go that way that you may choose > > to install 2.2. > > > > ... Joe > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net > > Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/342-4847 > > > > > >