Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:40:04 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@solaria.sol.net> Cc: "David E. Cross" <dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: 2.2 Stability (was Re: another victim..) Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970220083130.10199C-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199702192049.OAA06935@solaria.sol.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Joe Greco wrote: > On the other hand, 2.1.X has been proven by time and fire to be a STABLE > and RELIABLE OS. My Web server is setting site uptime records: > > 2:39PM up 195 days, 23:22, 1 user, load averages: 0.21, 0.18, 0.15 I've been running 2.2 since it was "current" with apache for 5 months and it's *never* fallen over. The longest uptime was around 65 days, but that was because it was taken down for kernel updates. The web serving load isn't very high though, httpd is generating about 30MB of logs every month. Regards, Mike Hancock > In the meantime, there are those of us who are beating the snot (sorry > for the Karlism) out of 2.2, and it is looking very promising. Hopefully > it can "prove" itself and take over for 2.1.7 within the next year. But > I am not going to put all of MY eggs in the 2.2 basket, until I am > confident that the basket is strong, and was well built, based on firsthand > experience. > > That's why you might wish to install 2.1.7. It's basically a matter of > faith and reliability. > > If you're looking for a desktop OS? Then the picture might be different. > 2.2 should offer enough of an incentive to go that way that you may choose > to install 2.2. > > ... Joe > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net > Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/342-4847 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.970220083130.10199C-100000>