Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:10:51 -0600 From: Stephen <sdk@yuck.net> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Re/Fwd: freebsd specific search Message-ID: <20000202131051.A645@visi.com> In-Reply-To: <200002021859.KAA00937@apollo.backplane.com>; from Matthew Dillon on Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 10:59:34AM -0800 References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0002021041230.804-100000@mini.acl.lanl.gov> <200002021859.KAA00937@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 10:59:34AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Linux has made great strides in the performance area -- the are way ahead > of us on SMP issues, but they are definitely still behind in the > reliable department. They almost caught up when we were going through > our 3.0/3.1 fiasco but then fell behind again. I agree with your general > assessment (though I'm even more rabid about NT, which I consider > plain and simply to be a piece of crap). > > It interesting to note that two years ago it was well known that running > NFSv3 under FreeBSD would destabilize it, so most people ran NFSv2. > Even NFSv2 2 years ago had problems. Linux is just reaching the point > now with NFSv2 where we were with NFSv3 two years ago. Thus in regards > to NFS, FreeBSD is about 2 years ahead of Linux. At this time both > NFSv2 and NFSv3 under FreeBSD are considered stable and reliable. > Re NFS stability. What version of the 3.x branch contained the updated NFS code? 3.3? Thanks, sk -- sdk@yuck.net 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?20000202131051.A645>