atom feed13 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-hackers2.2 Stability (was Re: another victim..)
FromSent OnAttachments
David E. CrossFeb 18, 1997 9:19 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardFeb 19, 1997 1:38 am 
David E. CrossFeb 19, 1997 9:45 am 
Joe GrecoFeb 19, 1997 10:30 am 
David E. CrossFeb 19, 1997 11:43 am 
Warner LoshFeb 19, 1997 12:07 pm 
Joe GrecoFeb 19, 1997 12:48 pm 
Julian ElischerFeb 19, 1997 12:49 pm 
Tom SamploniusFeb 19, 1997 2:33 pm 
Michael HancockFeb 19, 1997 3:39 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardFeb 19, 1997 3:55 pm 
Joe GrecoFeb 19, 1997 5:33 pm 
Michael HancockFeb 19, 1997 10:19 pm 
Subject:2.2 Stability (was Re: another victim..)
From:Michael Hancock (mich@cet.co.jp)
Date:Feb 19, 1997 3:39:44 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-hackers

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,

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