Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:09:06 +0100 From: Thomas Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability Message-ID: <20030105180906.GA413@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <1041729106.17746.145.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com> References: <200212170023.gBH0Nvlu000764@beast.csl.sri.com> <20030103000232.GA52181@blazingdot.com> <Pine.GSO.4.51.0301021738490.19685@xmission.xmission.com> <20030103062708.GA426@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20030103084232.GA3371@localhost.bsd.net.il> <20030103154323.GA454@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <1041659893.9975.179.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com> <20030104144157.GA485@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <1041729106.17746.145.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Wes Peters (wes@softweyr.com):
> On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 14:41, Thomas Seck wrote:
> > * Wes Peters (wes@softweyr.com):
> >
> > > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:43, Thomas Seck wrote:
> >
> > > > * Nimrod Mesika (nimrod-me@bezeqint.net):
> > > >
> > > > > And uptimes are not important. Downtimes *are*.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Especially the unscheduled ones.
> > >
> > > Don't be silly, uptimes are terribly important when they're not long
> > > enough to be useful. They're no longer important when they've gotten
> > > long enough to last between system upgrades, which FreeBSD and a number
> > > of other systems are regularly capable of these days.
> >
> > You are over interpreting my message.
>
> No, just taking it at face value. C'mon, look at the statement and
> admit it was absurd: "uptimes are not important." ;^)
...as much as they were 20 years ago when computers (and me) where still
in their infancy. To me this is so obvious that I did not mention it
explicitly.
[Max. uptime when tracking RELENG_x_y]
> Oh, you want numbers? OK, I'll take a wild stab at not more than 6-8
> months, which is nowhere near the 1000+ days being reported by
> Netcraft, but it certainly non-zero as well. And yes, there are
> systems available now still not able to run for months at a time.
I just updated a 4.5-p18 box with an uptime of ~180 days. I was
perfectly fine with this. But I expect to behave a Linux or NT system
similarly in respect to the load we generate. For me it's more a matter
of personal taste that makes me prefer FreeBSD over most other OS's.
Other people -- we had this discussion just here recently -- are far
better than me when it comes to uncover bugs in the kernel that affect
stability.
> Too much motorcyle mentality. Ever ride a first generation Honda CBX?
> On paper, they looked great. 6 cylinders, more moving parts than a
> space shuttle, broad flat powerband. In reality, those extra two
> cylinders tended to cook your legs, it was top-heavy and unweildy, and
> the frame was far too flexible for the power of the bike. Good specs,
> lousy integration.
Which is obviously once you see one right before you. But nowadays
motorcycle frames can handle far more power than they could twenty years
ago. Imagine a Hayabusa motor in a Suzuki frame from the 80's (even the
first GSX-R frames are probably rather wobbly compared to today's).
Judging from specs alone is always nonsense and to be left to the
management.
--Thomas
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030105180906.GA413>