From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 21 06:08:51 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB6216A4CE for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:08:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from otter3.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980D143FA3 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:08:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from centtech.com (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by otter3.centtech.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hALE8m6T027763; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:08:48 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <3FBE1C67.9060506@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:08:39 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tec@mega.net.br References: <20031121.cyV.23876100@admin.mega.net.br> In-Reply-To: <20031121.cyV.23876100@admin.mega.net.br> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD data size tuning X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:08:51 -0000 TEC Meganet wrote: >it's here >http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.9R/announce.html > It says: "We encourage all our users to evaluate FreeBSD 5.1 and the upcoming 5.2. Because PAE support has only been a feature in 4.X for a few months, it has not received wide-spread testing, and our most conservative users may wish to stay with FreeBSD 4.8 until they choose to migrate to 5.X." Which is a lot different than: "The BSd people suggest not using 4.9in production servers." >Peter Pentchev (roam@ringlet.net) wrote*: > > >>On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 12:12:03PM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote: >>Content-Description: signed data >> >> >>>On Friday 21 November 2003 10:52, TEC Meganet wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The BSd people suggest not using 4.9 >>>>in production servers. >>>> >>>> >>>They do? >>> >>> >>No. Or at least, I know of no such thing, and it would be interesting >>to learn where and who and how has anything like that been suggested :) >> >> Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology All generalizations are false, including this one. ------------------------------------------------------------------