Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:50:37 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: David Miller <dmiller@search.sparks.net> Cc: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General stability? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9906220948190.80685-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990621112350.5923G-100000@search.sparks.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, David Miller wrote: > I've been lurking on the list for a few days now and haven't seen any > discussion of this. The status page on the freebsd.org server just says: > > The alpha port status page has been removed now that the port has > progressed to the stage that anything not in proper working order can > be treated as a bug instead of work-in-progress. > > So the question I'm asking is whether the aplha kernel developers feel the > alpha port is stable enough to "bet the farm on". I run a website on > which we expect to see 5-10 million hits/day (spread amongst several > servers) with database access, cgi scripts with some sql lookups - a very > dynamic site. I need the same kind of triple digit uptimes I'm used to > with FreeBSD and other unices. > > Is the alpha port at this stage yet, or am I safer sticking to x86 for the > time being? I think that the alpha port is pretty solid right now but I haven't run any systems under this kind of load. I would be very interested in hearing about how the port stands up in this situation. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" 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.4.05.9906220948190.80685-100000>