From owner-freebsd-current Mon Oct 20 17:12:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01173 for current-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from adsdevelop.autodebit.com (adsdevelop.autodebit.com [204.50.245.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA01167 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:12:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davidg@autodebit.com) Received: by adsdevelop.autodebit.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.837.3) id <01BCDD7B.0CA64370@adsdevelop.autodebit.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:10:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Green-Seed To: "'current@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: usable current SNAP Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:10:20 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.837.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I believe that mysql uses MIT-pthreads which is a user-level threads package... This _probably_ means that the threads will run within the context of one kernel thread only - ie: only one thread runs at a time. I'm not sure, so you might want to verify this one. Dave. _________________________ David Green-Seed davidg@autodebit.com Automated Debit Systems >-----Original Message----- >From: spork [SMTP:spork@super-g.com] >Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 5:42 PM >To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG >Cc: Greg Lehey; current@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: usable current SNAP > >Hello, > >Since everyone's on the topic, how about this application: > >I need to build a big database server, and am looking to run it on a >dual-processor machine. The database we need to use is mysql, which I >believe can take advantage of 3.0's threads... > >Is this wise or not? > >Charles > >On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, John S. Dyson wrote: > >> Greg Lehey said: >> > On Sat, Oct 18, 1997 at 06:55:43PM -0600, Steve Passe wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > I need to bring up a web server this week using current. This needs to >> > > be a "works first time" installation (to impress a client). >> > >> > I don't understand this. This is *not* the purpose of -current. To >> > quote: >> > >> (good comments from Greg deleted) >> >> > >> > If you want to impress a customer, I would have thought that -stable >> > would be a much better choice. >> > >> The only point that I might disagree with you on is that there are times >> that there are necessary features in -current. Basically, with -current >> the person who uses it is on their own. Hopefully, those who use it don't >> end up giving FreeBSD a bad reputation because of the pre-Alpha/Alpha/Beta >> quality of the code. Important features would be practically the only >> reason for violating the "rule." -stable and -current aren't that far >> away in performance (it isn't like 2.1 vs. 2.2.), 2.2 and 3.0 are pretty >> close. >> >> My opinion is that those who use -current in production get absolutely >> no sympathy from me (or most others on the team.) However, some people >> who are actively contributing to FreeBSD get quite a bit more leeway (I am >> willing to go further out of my way to help) than others. (They are more >> likely to understand the state of the code, and are generally willing and >> able to help us all more in solving problems that they encounter.) >> >> But, in general, I agree that it is not a very good idea to use -current >> in production without understanding that the support issues are >>significant. >> The FreeBSD group of developers are already overloaded, and simply do not >> need the additional problems of supporting -current. >> >> There is very little more irritating than to be coerced to fix a bug that >> isn't ready to be fixed yet. >> >> -- >> John >> dyson@freebsd.org >> jdyson@nc.com >> >