From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 13 16:31:54 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA08331 for current-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:31:54 -0800 Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA08326 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:31:49 -0800 Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18412; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:31:30 -0500 From: Charles Henrich Message-Id: <199511140031.TAA18412@crh.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns To: julian@ref.tfs.com (Julian Elischer) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:31:29 -0500 (EST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199511140026.QAA25869@ref.tfs.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Nov 13, 95 04:26:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 699 Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > I don't think it was 'Sat on'.. 2.1 was happenning.... > hopefully there is a backlog of such things that will now happen now that > the main vm people can breath again.... Maybe im talking out of turn here (hell, I am) but it seems to me that if there is something this significantly "broken", we should have at least attempted to see how valid it was and move it into 2.2. It seems that our target it the high-performance, high-reliability ISP service, and bugs that cause the entire system to freeze every n seconds for many seconds is a serious problem. -Crh Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/