From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Jan 3 7:43:37 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8117D37B401 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 07:43:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.netcologne.de (smtp.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B470943EDC for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 07:43:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from mail.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-196-194-144.netcologne.de [213.196.194.144]) by smtp.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6417F8680E for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:43:27 +0100 (MET) Received: by mail.tmseck.homedns.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 65CA22843B; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:43:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:43:23 +0100 From: Thomas Seck To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability Message-ID: <20030103154323.GA454@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> Reply-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200212170023.gBH0Nvlu000764@beast.csl.sri.com> <20030103000232.GA52181@blazingdot.com> <20030103062708.GA426@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20030103084232.GA3371@localhost.bsd.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030103084232.GA3371@localhost.bsd.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: private site in Germany X-PGP-KeyID: DF46EE05 X-PGP-Fingerprint: A38F AE66 6B11 6EB9 5D1A B67D 2444 2FE1 DF46 EE05 X-Attribution: tms Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * 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