From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jun 29 23:57:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from router.difi.de (router.difi.de [212.6.96.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB2037B724 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:57:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from uwe.laverenz@difi.de) Received: from max.difi.de (max [192.168.1.2]) by router.difi.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01649 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:57:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from uwe.laverenz@difi.de) Received: from difi.de (edv1.difi.de [192.168.1.54]) by max.difi.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19473 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:57:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from uwe.laverenz@difi.de) Message-ID: <395C44E4.E0888D27@difi.de> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:57:40 +0200 From: Uwe Laverenz Organization: DIFI Dierk Filmer GmbH X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.5 now available . . . . . References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi Andy, > experience with multiple FreeBSD boxes in a live environment, I've found > that 3.x is much more stable than the 4.x servers. I've gone so far as to > revert the 4.x server back to 3.x. I'm going to revisit the issue when it > becomes 4.1. Huh? I have similar experiences, but in my case it's exactly the opposite. Especially if FreeBSD runs as NFS-server, I would always prefer 4.x. Uwe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message