At 11:10 PM -0500 2000/4/2, Kevin Day wrote:
> It's probably more accurate, but from a PR standpoint it makes it "look"
> like FreeBSD is choking under the load, when it really isn't. Or am I the
> only one that even cares about this? :)
It's also extremely confusing for Linux users/admins who are used
to the system rolling over and dying if the load average ever gets
over 2.0 (and panic'ing if the load average goes over 4.0), and who
see FreeBSD capable of surviving (if not necessarily performing very
well) with load averages as high as 100 or even 200.
--
These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
======================================================================
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || Belgacom Skynet SA/NV
Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin || Rue Colonel Bourg, 124
Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/12.49 || B-1140 Brussels
http://www.skynet.be || Belgium
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
