From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Nov 17 19:16:41 2002 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 A8FD837B401 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 19:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.netcologne.de (smtp.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219FE43E4A for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 19:16:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from mail.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-168-117-75.netcologne.de [213.168.117.75]) by smtp.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B518661D for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:16:37 +0100 (MET) Received: by mail.tmseck.homedns.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 600DC286A5; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:16:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:16:34 +0100 From: Thomas Seck To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time Message-ID: <20021118031634.GA755@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> Reply-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20021118022259.062A1286A5@mail.tmseck.homedns.org> <20021117222804.I23359-100000@hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021117222804.I23359-100000@hub.org> 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 * Marc G. Fournier (scrappy@hub.org): > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Thomas Seck wrote: > > > Always happy to serve. But please read my mail Marc had replied to - > > especially the part not quoted in his reply to get my meaning. If I were > > in Marc's position I would run -RELEASE and generate patches for new > > features and bugfixes myself from -STABLE after review and test. Yes, > > this means definitely a lot more work than the occasional CVSup - make > > world - cycle. But after all, that's what system administration is all > > about. > > 'K, and in my position, how would you test? These are bugs that are > triggered by "real live, high load" scenarios ... how long do you test for > before you feel it is stable? One of my servers ran 20 days straight, > with no problems, before it crashed ... if I had tested for 19 days and > decided it was stable, I would have missed that 'last day' ... Test programs that bevave like your users - spawning lots of processes and the like? I am not a developer - are there some "load simulating" suites available? If so, I could give them a try regularly on various i386 machines at work. If not, could we talk some of the core developers into developing a test suite? > Plus, you are advocating a proactive approach of preventing the crashes > before they happen, which means that someone has to find the crashes in > the first place ... I'm advocating that some of us are willing to provide > "real world, high load" servers to generate those crashes so that they can > be fixed, and are looking for some support from those that know enough to > fix it ... I am talking with my system administrator hat on. My production servers did not run into troubles with -RELEASE so far. My -STABLE machines at home did not, too. Maybe I am just lucky... But I agree with you that having some dedicated testing boxes would be a "good thing"(tm). --Thomas To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message