From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Dec  4  8:25:20 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438E4150ED
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat,  4 Dec 1999 08:25:12 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dennis@etinc.com)
Received: from dbsys (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18])
	by etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA16468;
	Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:25:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Version.32.19991122105556.02b0a4f0@etinc.com>
Message-Id: <Version.32.19991122105556.02b0a4f0@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 11:20:49 -0500
To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>
From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: PCI DMA lockups in 3.2 (3.3 maybe?) 
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911211948060.81323-100000@jade.chc-chimes.c
 om>
References: <199911220127.UAA28430@etinc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

At 07:49 PM 11/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Dennis wrote:
>
>> The nightmare of instability of  3.x continues whilst the braintrust flogs
>> away at 4.x. Its really  a damn shame. And why is 3.x so much slower than
>> 2.2.8?  Will 4.0 be slower yet?
>
>Your vagueness and lack of evidence is astounding. 


The "evidence" is that 3.x chokes in conditions that 2.2.8 and LINUX dont
on the exact same hardware. Sorry I dont have time to present a case to
you.  The number of customer i have that still run 2.2.8 is perhaps
"circumstantial" evidence, but significant.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message