From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 21 06:42:54 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 F211216A4CF for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:42:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from wipmail.com.br (200-171-107-246.dsl.telesp.net.br [200.171.107.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85B143FB1 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:42:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tec@mega.net.br) Received: from admin.mega.net.br wsrv.mega.net.br by matik.com.br (MDaemon.PRO.v6.8.5.R) with ESMTP id 13-md50000000159.tmp for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:18:57 -0300 X-Originating-IP: [200.152.81.43] From: "TEC Meganet" To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:42:37 +0000 Message-ID: <20031121.EbN.16579100@admin.mega.net.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailer: AngleMail for phpGroupWare (http://www.phpgroupware.org) v 0.9.99.006 X-Lookup-Warning: HELO/EHLO lookup on admin.mega.net.br does not match 200.152.83.39 X-Return-Path: tec@mega.net.br X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-Spam-Processed: mega.net.br, Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:18:58 -0300 Subject: Re: FreeBSD data size tuning X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: tec@mega.net.br List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:42:54 -0000 now you're touching the art of speaking and understanding ... certainly also a performance so it fits well here :) if the maker of the software says stay with the old one until the newer one is ready it is for me a very clear statement, special in context with talking about PAE or the writer should learn to write better ... Eric Anderson (anderson@centtech.com) wrote*: > >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. >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >