From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 21 11:47:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05725 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:47:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA05713 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:47:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA19663; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:47:31 -0800 (PST) To: Nate Williams cc: Charles Henrich , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Serious performance issue with 2.2.5-RELEASE In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:13:34 MST." <199711211713.KAA14398@mt.sri.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:47:30 -0800 Message-ID: <19659.880141650@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > In defense of Jaye, let's say he did bring in a spare PC, loaded it up > with 2.2.5 and it worked fine in his 'fake' load environment. But, when > he moved it into 'real' production use, it started seeing those kinds of > problems. Would his problem be taken more seriously then? His problem would be taken seriously in either case, but in the 2nd scenario we'd also have time to investigate it without having to listen to his dire predictions of impending business failure at the same time. :-) I understand that some problems don't show up until you load test, but at the same time you need to be able to service your customers on whatever platform *worked* last while you go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and try to figure out why your migration failed. Jordan