Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:57:32 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns Message-ID: <199511140057.RAA00978@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199511140031.TAA18412@crh.cl.msu.edu> References: <199511140026.QAA25869@ref.tfs.com> <199511140031.TAA18412@crh.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Henrich writes: > > 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. Is it any more serious that the other problems the VM guys spent hours fixing? I'd consider it *less* serious that most of the other problems that were fixed in 2.1. There are only so many hours in a day, and those 24 were spent making 2.1 as good as it could get. If this means that the system still has a 'feature' of pausing under certain conditions I don't mind it as much as rebooting and/or panicing under more common scenarios. Either you get a release out the door, or you wait indefinately and fix all known bugs while the system stagnates because of lack of features. I think all involved would prefer the former to the latter. :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511140057.RAA00978>