From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jan 5 10: 9:27 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 A806237B401 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 10:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.netcologne.de (smtp.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C810843EA9 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 10:09:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from mail.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-168-109-16.netcologne.de [213.168.109.16]) by smtp.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E498670B for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:09:20 +0100 (MET) Received: by mail.tmseck.homedns.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3284B28439; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:09:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:09:06 +0100 From: Thomas Seck To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability Message-ID: <20030105180906.GA413@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> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1041729106.17746.145.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com> 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 * 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