From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 21 07:04:00 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 1598B16A4CF for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:04:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from otter3.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B4D4400D for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:03:52 -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 hALF3q6T035033; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:03:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <3FBE294F.2060907@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:03:43 -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.EbN.16579100@admin.mega.net.br> In-Reply-To: <20031121.EbN.16579100@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 15:04:00 -0000 TEC Meganet wrote: >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 ... > This is one of those "subject to interpretation" things. I read the "our most conservative users" to mean "our users who never apply patches or upgrade until they are 6 months old". Plus, if you notice, they are saying "use 5.1, 5.2, 4.9, or if you are paranoid, stick with 4.8" - and I understand, it's basically the same thing I tell a user who is prone to complain about every change or bump when moving to something newer. For those users, I say "if you don't like the pain of change, don't change". I can't argue with your interpretation - it's perfectly valid. So - use 4.8. Eric >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 Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology All generalizations are false, including this one. ------------------------------------------------------------------