Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Bartol <bartol@salk.edu> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Matthew Reimer <mreimer@vpop.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990421105317.22656L-100000@eccles.salk.edu> In-Reply-To: <19990421174502.ECEC61F2A@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote: > Matthew Reimer wrote: > > Great work guys! It almost seems that -current is more stable than > > -stable! > > > > Matt > > Funny you should mention it. I've heard this from a number of people over > the last week.. One has even suggested using a particular known-good 4.0 > snapshot in preference to a 3.1-stable for a production system...... > > Cheers, > -Peter And on this note -- is it planned to merge or backport these patches to -stable? We make very heavy use of NFS (udp, 100mb fxp0 fullduplex). We're using FreeBSD-3.1-STABLE as NFS clients to a big Auspex NS7000 NFS file server. We're in production mode in our lab and can't risk running -current on many of our machines so we've decided to run -stable on ALL of them (except perhaps MY machine but don't tell anyone ;-) Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990421105317.22656L-100000>