Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:24:14 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: plm@xs4all.nl (Peter Mutsaers) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lite-2 question Message-ID: <199703030224.VAA07156@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <87pvxi38k0.fsf@plm.xs4all.nl> from "Peter Mutsaers" at Mar 2, 97 11:14:07 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My responses are FWIW, and my opinion of expected progress for Lite/2 integration. > > Could someone tell me what the Lite-2 merges bring? Does it for > example mean that things like the union FS or LFS will work? Or are > there other improvements? > It mostly brings our code up to the level of the "latest." This will make it more worthwhile to invest in future development on our codebase. In a general sense, it "enables" our further development regarding better support of filesystem layering and also has some support for finer grained SMP locking. It will not immediately give it to us though. > > I'm doubting what I should do: Use 3.0-current (but wait a while until > the Lite-2 merge has stabilized a bit) or use 2.2 (when Lite-2's > improvements are not of great use for me). > For approx 1mo, I would not use Lite/2 in production of any kind. You will likely not see major improvements beyond where 3.0-current was before the initial merge for about that timeframe. I am still using a 3.0-current kernel from early Feb for my running system. I will likely move over to the Lite/2 merged stuff for most of my development in about the 1mo timeframe. The kernel is "pretty stable" right now, but still needs work, but there is no sense in putting oneself through unnecessary pain (IMO.) John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703030224.VAA07156>