From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Sep 20 14:20:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857AC37B423; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e8KLJpT16418; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:19:50 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: "O. Hartmann" Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Whats is this? FBSD 4.1 isn't stable! Message-ID: <20000920141950.O9141@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000920135345.M9141@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from ohartman@ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de on Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 11:08:03PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * O. Hartmann [000920 14:05] wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Well, sorry, but this is not that kind of doing science by laying hands onto something > and say: well - its this kind of symptome! > > We develop here equipment for airborne measurement facilities for meteorological > science and the way we stress things makes me sure, over the time, that a system, > which has been stressed much more under much more bad conditions do not fail > in a phase of been not stressed that hard. > > Maybe you're right and I caught some kind of "hardware failure", but surely not > that kind of failure that we expect due to "overheating" the CPUs. The machine here > in front of me is much better air conditioned thatn other systems I stressed. please read this: http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/ Try not to talk to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. And don't forget about the email formatting. :) thanks, -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message