On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 06:00:21PM +0200, Bohdan Horst wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:15:41PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > Hmm - looks like I missed that thread, never mind - repeatability of
> > findings is sound scientific principle :-)
> >
> > With respect to changing the default for v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
>> I know the developers don't hear it often enough, but thanks for
all you=20
>> do. I'm not a programmer, and I currently don't have the funds
to=20
>> donate to the project, but you do have my heartfelt thanks for
If memory serves me right, Janet Sullivan wrote:
> I do think some mistakes were made with the release engineering over
> 5.x's lifetime, but folks, what's done is done. Recently things do seem
> to be headed in a better direction, for which I'm thankful.
As one who "was there" for about half
Hello list and J. :-)
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 18:26, J. Porter Clark wrote:
> Because the hard drive is "only" 20 GB, I have an external drive
> connected to the IEEE 1394 port. (The USB ports on this laptop
> are unacceptably pokey.) Most of the problems are probably
> related to my attempts a
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 02:30:49PM +0100, Joao Barros wrote:
>
> I dual boot between XP and FreeBSD and even use VMWare to boot FreeBSD
> with the real partition. Nice having FreeBSD compiling something in
> the background while using XP :)
That's pretty cool...
> That is a keyboard problem (the
On 7/26/05, J. Porter Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 7/25/05, J. Porter Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> The ATA (definitely not SATA) controller on my Dell Latitude
> >> C840 laptop has READ_DMA, WRITE_DMA problems, maybe 2-3 times
> >> a day unless I turn off DMA. It hangs for
>On 7/25/05, J. Porter Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> The ATA (definitely not SATA) controller on my Dell Latitude
>> C840 laptop has READ_DMA, WRITE_DMA problems, maybe 2-3 times
>> a day unless I turn off DMA. It hangs for 3-4 seconds, logs
>> errors, then proceeds. It isn't heavily loa
On 7/25/05, J. Porter Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The VIA SATA onboard controller on my server works (and has worked)
> >flawlessly. I have two identical 80G Maxtor SATA drives connected to it
> >and have had absolutely no problems and excellent performance. Even my
> >Dell Inspirion 5100
J. Porter Clark wrote:
The ATA (definitely not SATA) controller on my Dell Latitude
C840 laptop has READ_DMA, WRITE_DMA problems, maybe 2-3 times
a day unless I turn off DMA. It hangs for 3-4 seconds, logs
errors, then proceeds. It isn't heavily loaded. I tried using
Soren's ATA mkIII patches
>The VIA SATA onboard controller on my server works (and has worked)
>flawlessly. I have two identical 80G Maxtor SATA drives connected to it
>and have had absolutely no problems and excellent performance. Even my
>Dell Inspirion 5100--with a few hiccups--has made great progress and is
>mostly fu
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:15:41PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Hmm - looks like I missed that thread, never mind - repeatability of
> findings is sound scientific principle :-)
>
> With respect to changing the default for vfs.read_max - makes sense to
> me, but it would be interesting to know
Igor Robul wrote:
> Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>> Ok, Robert, but then here's the question
>>
>> How come the ATA code which was very stable in 4.x was screwed with in a
>> production release, breaking it, with no path backwards to the working
>> code?
>>
>>
> I had not ANY problems with ATA on
Hmm - looks like I missed that thread, never mind - repeatability of
findings is sound scientific principle :-)
With respect to changing the default for vfs.read_max - makes sense to
me, but it would be interesting to know if anyone has a system that
performs *worse* with it set to 16.
regar
> >How come the ATA code which was very stable in 4.x was screwed with in a
> >production release, breaking it, with no path backwards to the working
> >code?
> >
> I had not ANY problems with ATA on several mothersboards, both SMP and
> uniproc.
I must say that I have had few problems using FreeB
Karl Denninger wrote:
Ok, Robert, but then here's the question
How come the ATA code which was very stable in 4.x was screwed with in a
production release, breaking it, with no path backwards to the working
code?
I had not ANY problems with ATA on several mothersboards, both SMP and
uni
At 02:13 PM 24/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 07:58:20PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> Most likely the bug you have run into is difficult or impossible to
> reproduce on other hardware than the particular combination you are using.
FWIW my earlier post about it appearing
Its been mentioned before and most experience the same as you by
setting it to 16 a dramatic improvement in the sequential read, I
currently run all my 5.x servers like this with no issues as a result.
I am curious if the default will ever be changed.
Chris
On 22/07/05, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PRO
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 07:58:20PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> Most likely the bug you have run into is difficult or impossible to
> reproduce on other hardware than the particular combination you are using.
FWIW my earlier post about it appearing to work with only one disk on the
chain was inco
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 07:58:20PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:00:55PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>> Should not there be an EXPLICIT note in the release notes for hardware that
>> this chipset WILL NOT WORK PROPERLY?
>
> It does seem to work for many users, or there
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:00:55PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 05:43:34AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:01:36PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > > Done.
> > >
> > > Note that the Bustek and Adaptec cards which exhibit the problem BOTH
> > >
3Ware cards will work with 32 bit PCI buses.
At 10:20 AM 7/24/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Those cards all have (and appear to require) PCI-64 (double-connector) bus
plug-ins. For those of us with single PCI bus slots (e.g. those of us who
don't have Opterons), that simply won't work unless I'm
Update - it appears that as long as I only use ONE of the two channels on
the card, it works ok.
I've got a "buildworld" running right now on the Sandbox, but with only
one of the two disks attached. So far, no errors.
So it would appear that the problem IS related to the previously-reported
iss
At 10:20 AM 24/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Those cards all have (and appear to require) PCI-64 (double-connector) bus
plug-ins. For those of us with single PCI bus slots (e.g. those of us who
don't have Opterons), that simply won't work unless I'm missing something.
I have used the 3ware ca
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> >PR being filed now.
>
> When you've filed the PR and get a PR# receipt back, please forward me
> the PR# receipt.
>
> FYI, your spam filter thinks every message I send you as spam
Those cards all have (and appear to require) PCI-64 (double-connector) bus
plug-ins. For those of us with single PCI bus slots (e.g. those of us who
don't have Opterons), that simply won't work unless I'm missing something.
--
--
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Righ
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
PR being filed now.
When you've filed the PR and get a PR# receipt back, please forward me the
PR# receipt.
FYI, your spam filter thinks every message I send you as spam. It's not
impossible it might think the same of the GNATS source address, s
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 12:00 AM 24/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Finally, any pointers on a 2 port PCI SATA board that (1) is KNOWN to
work, (2) has EXTERNAL SATA connections, and (3) isn't one of those
whiz-bang all-in-one-RAID thingies that costs $500?
3ware makes an e
At 04:22 PM 21/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
ATA-NG (Soren's new code) is not (from what I understand) in the 5.x
codebase.
No, but its quite different from what was in 4.x.
My understanding is that the 5.x code is a half-baked version of ATA-NG,
and IMHO it had no business going into a P
At 12:00 AM 24/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Finally, any pointers on a 2 port PCI SATA board that (1) is KNOWN to
work, (2) has EXTERNAL SATA connections, and (3) isn't one of those
whiz-bang all-in-one-RAID thingies that costs $500?
3ware makes an excellent 2 port SATA card (8000 series) th
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 05:43:34AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:01:36PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > Done.
> >
> > Note that the Bustek and Adaptec cards which exhibit the problem BOTH
> > identify the same (on two different machines) as SII 3112 boards, and
> > BO
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:01:36PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Done.
>
> Note that the Bustek and Adaptec cards which exhibit the problem BOTH
> identify the same (on two different machines) as SII 3112 boards, and
> BOTH fail.
>
> There are minor differences in the interrupts and memory mapp
Done.
Note that the Bustek and Adaptec cards which exhibit the problem BOTH
identify the same (on two different machines) as SII 3112 boards, and
BOTH fail.
There are minor differences in the interrupts and memory mapping used
(which is to be expected, as there are peripherals in the production
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 08:53:02PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Danny Howard wrote:
>
> >While I agree with Karl that introducing instability is a very bad
> >thing, I guess we now have an answer to Karl's vexation yesterday: [
> >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freeb
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
It is definitely NOT fixed in 6.0-BETA1
Within SECONDS of starting a buildworld after the provider rebuild
completed, I got this...
Could you file a PR based on this report? Specifically, if you could
include:
- The error output below.
- If po
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Danny Howard wrote:
While I agree with Karl that introducing instability is a very bad
thing, I guess we now have an answer to Karl's vexation yesterday: [
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-July/017210.html
]
"What I don't understand Robert is w
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:53:00PM -0700, Danny Howard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:53:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> [...]
> > Note carefully from this that there is NO ERROR INDICATION AS TO WHY THE
> > DISK DETACHED!
> >
> > At least with the 5.x problems you'd SEE an error before i
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:53:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
[...]
> Note carefully from this that there is NO ERROR INDICATION AS TO WHY THE
> DISK DETACHED!
>
> At least with the 5.x problems you'd SEE an error before it went BOOM.
>
> This time around, nope - just death.
>
> What's worse,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:40:09PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> It is definitely NOT fixed in 6.0-BETA1
>
> Within SECONDS of starting a buildworld after the provider rebuild
> completed, I got this...
>
> GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: provider ad4s1 detected.
> GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: rebuilding
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2005 22:06 CEST schrieb Matthias Buelow:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >My main problem, and to others after seeing the question from times to
> >times, is to know which is a good (not necessarly the best) hardware to
> >run FreeBSD on?
> >When I buy a new motherboard, which
It is definitely NOT fixed in 6.0-BETA1
Within SECONDS of starting a buildworld after the provider rebuild
completed, I got this...
GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: provider ad4s1 detected.
GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: rebuilding provider ad4s1.
GEOM_MIRROR: Device boot: provider ad6s1 detected.
GEOM_MIRRO
Just to clarify the ATA code that is in FreeBSD 5.x is ATA-ng, the
ATA code that is in FreeBSD 6.x+ is the ATA mkIII code.
ATA-ng Preview1
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/htdig/freebsd-current/2003-August/008351.html
ATA-ng Preview2
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/htdig/freebsd-current/
Karl Denninger wrote:
As I pointed out in my PR, "make -j4 buildworld" is more than sufficient
to demonstrate the problem.
( ... )
I'll pull over 6.0-BETA1, rebuild the array (that is the time-consuming
part of this test - takes 6-8 hours for the rebuild to run) and see if it
fails during a
On Thu, 2005-Jul-21 17:46:13 +0200, Martin wrote:
>One more thing about "cheap hardware": if you know that a piece of
>hardware is potentially buggy (I mean real BUGS and not missing
>support), please publish your opinion, because I will buy hardware
>FOR FREEBSD, so I avoid major problems. How abo
I happened to have received a 'new' machine, and wanted to see what its
IO system was capable of. So took the opportunity to run 4.10 and 5.4
against each other a few times. (fresh re-installs each time).
Its documented at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/markir/freebsd/
I wanted to play with
On 7/21/05, Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >My main problem, and to others after seeing the question from times to
> >times, is to know which is a good (not necessarly the best) hardware to
> >run FreeBSD on?
> >When I buy a new motherboard, which chipse
I've been a BSD user since the mid-90s, and a FreeBSD user since the
days 4.0 became STABLE.
Right now, I have 2 collocated servers, one home server, and a laptop
all running 5.4 without any serious problems. I've watched 5.x since
its creation, and while there have been some rocky times, I d
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 01:38:40AM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> >If Soren BELIEVES (2) is the case, I'll test against -BETA1, IF I can
> >have confirmation that -BETA1 has the ATA-NG code in it.
> >
> >Its trivially easy for me to reproduce this
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Matthias Schuendehuette wrote:
Am 21.07.2005 um 13:00 schrieb Robert Watson:
Have you tried, and do you plan to try, our 6.0 test releases before
6.0-RELEASE goes out the door? Specifically, on the hardware you know
you're having problems with 5.4 on?
Yes, I did
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
If Soren BELIEVES (2) is the case, I'll test against -BETA1, IF I can
have confirmation that -BETA1 has the ATA-NG code in it.
Its trivially easy for me to reproduce this problem on my sandbox
machine.
As has already been stated, Soren's changes a
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:45:03AM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> >ATA-NG (Soren's new code) is not (from what I understand) in the 5.x
> >codebase. One bone of contention is that apparently it IS in -HEAD, but
> >there are no plans to MFC it to
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Alexey Yakimovich wrote:
Even for "dynamic problems" you can have your code generating detailed
logs, including time, pid, thread id, cpu, function, memory ..., and
have them analyzed later by some script. But this not my main point
here, in this thread.
Instrumentation
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
ATA-NG (Soren's new code) is not (from what I understand) in the 5.x
codebase. One bone of contention is that apparently it IS in -HEAD, but
there are no plans to MFC it to 5.x.
Then you misunderstand. Soren has asked to MFC it, and we've asked hi
t; -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Linimon
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:15 PM
> To: Robert Watson
> Cc: 'Marc Olzheim'; Alexey Yakimovich; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Quality of FreeBSD
&g
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 08:00:40PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> [original poster wrote:]
> >- I completely agree with MikeM - any kind of complex software could be
> >tested with right prepared test cases, specially if they are going to be
> >reused in the next release;
For static problems -- yes
At 8:50 AM -0400 7/21/05, MikeM wrote:
On 7/21/2005 at 8:29 PM Daniel O'Connor wrote:
|
| I think the best way to rectify this is to test RC candidates
| on YOUR hardware.. This finds the bugs you need fixed at a
| time when people are very receptive to fixing them.
|
| It's not realistic for the
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 04:12:47PM -0400, Paul Mather wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 14:26 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> > Ok, Robert, but then here's the question
> >
> > How come the ATA code which was very stable in 4.x was screwed with in a
> > production release, breaking it, with no
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 03:51:13PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 03:26 PM 21/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >Ok, Robert, but then here's the question
> >
> >How come the ATA code which was very stable in 4.x was screwed with in a
> >production release, breaking it, with no path backwards to
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 14:26 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Ok, Robert, but then here's the question
>
> How come the ATA code which was very stable in 4.x was screwed with in a
> production release, breaking it, with no path backwards to the working
> code?
Not to mention that this happened
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>My main problem, and to others after seeing the question from times to
>times, is to know which is a good (not necessarly the best) hardware to
>run FreeBSD on?
>When I buy a new motherboard, which chipset to choose/avoid, which controllers
>?
Maybe some website like it
At 03:26 PM 21/07/2005, Karl Denninger wrote:
Ok, Robert, but then here's the question
How come the ATA code which was very stable in 4.x was screwed with in a
production release, breaking it, with no path backwards to the working
code?
I understand your frustration, but others would argue
tructive feedback on the work they do, consisting
> of thanks when it works, and helpful bug reports when it doesn't. Some
> FreeBSD developers live to write new features; others live to get things
> working "just right", answer questions on mailing lists, or give ta
areas that don't get enough
attention. :-)
Robert N M Watson
Thanks,
Alexey
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:21 AM
To: Marc Olzheim
Cc: Alexey Yakimovich; freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Quality of FreeBSD
Hi all!
I have read this thread with a lot of interest and I have to
congratulate each of you for bringing calm, clever and interesting
answers.
I too felt that the quality of 5.x is not what I was used to but there
are new nice and promising features.
Having read most of all the emails it looks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Robert,
Am 21.07.2005 um 13:00 schrieb Robert Watson:
Have you tried, and do you plan to try, our 6.0 test releases before
6.0-RELEASE goes out the door? Specifically, on the hardware you
know
you're having problems with 5.4 on?
Yes,
ll
disappeared or changed to .com. So make sure you are still doing what you
like to do and you are having a fun of it.
Thanks,
Alexey
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:21 AM
> To: Marc Olzheim
> Cc: A
Agreed.
I have a PR open on the ATA issues, particularly with SATA drives, and
have had it open since before 5.4-RELEASE.
It remains open.
Careful selection of what's where can avoid major trouble, but this is
hardware that worked properly on 4.x for a LONG time - its definitely NOT
defective.
At 09:23 AM 21/07/2005, Joao Barros wrote:
On 7/21/05, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Joao Barros wrote:
>
> > I was hopping for you to mention user's feedback. I started this thread
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-July/052288.html
>
Robert Watson wrote:
- ATA problems. Many of these, while a symptom of bugs in the ATA code
running without Giant, were very specific to timing, or divergent/poor
ATA hardware. As a result, they were difficult to reproduce in any
environment but the original reporting environment. The sa
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, MikeM wrote:
Thank you for the clear answer. For the record, I am very pleased with
the overall quality of FreeBSD, my comments were only meant in the sense
of "everything has room for improvement", even something as excellent as
FreeBSD.
I think everyone agrees there's
On 7/21/2005 at 2:29 PM Robert Watson wrote:
|Some of us have actually spent quite a bit of time looking at the
defect
|sets reported for 5.x. Depending on the release they fall into a
number
|of categories, but here are the major ones I've identified:
| [snip]
|- Network stack stability under
On 7/21/05, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:23 AM 21/07/2005, Joao Barros wrote:
>
> >John started debugging this with another person with similar problems
> >on 5 and the debugging never got to 6 (no feedback from the other
> >person):
> >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 01:20:49PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> >I know FreeBSD 5 was a strange exception in the relase scheduling and
> >that a lot has been learned from it for the future and I'm certainly not
> >unthankful for all the work that's done, but I'd like a clear answer on
> >what t
At 09:23 AM 21/07/2005, Joao Barros wrote:
John started debugging this with another person with similar problems
on 5 and the debugging never got to 6 (no feedback from the other
person):
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-July/052727.html
Yes, The other person is me :)
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, MikeM wrote:
Your comment presupposes that most of the bugs are specific to one piece
of hardware, I doubt that is a valid assertion. I would offer that most
of the bugs are not present in source code specific to a certain piece
of hardware, but are present in source code
On 7/21/05, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Joao Barros wrote:
>
> > I was hopping for you to mention user's feedback. I started this thread
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-July/052288.html
> > back with SNAP004. The problem is still pre
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Joao Barros wrote:
I was hopping for you to mention user's feedback. I started this thread
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-July/052288.html
back with SNAP004. The problem is still present in BETA1. I haven't seen
any more advances in the thread, an
On 7/21/2005 at 8:29 PM Daniel O'Connor wrote:
|On Thursday 21 July 2005 19:27, Marc Olzheim wrote:
|> Thank you for expressing my exact same sentiments. I'm still a huge
|> FreeBSD fan and switching to anything else (well, perhaps DragonFly)
|> seems out of the question, but my faith is being te
Hi,
at this point i musttail my paint with you and the other's.
I have really made a few tests on one big issue or RELENG_5.
At the time as it was early enough to change things, but the guys they
have me telled someone else have to fast machines to test ( in my eyes
they should test on some slowee
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Nicklas B. Westerlund wrote:
Although I havn't seen any major problems on our servers, all using u320
scsi and smp - I don't feel as secure about my choice of upgrading to
5.x. We still have some 4.x servers in production, and judging by how
this is evolving, I think I'll
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Marc Olzheim wrote:
Indeed. That's why my company started taking FreeBSD 5.3 in use for
production servers when it was out. Since then numerous bugs were fixed,
some of which reported by us. Now that we're X bug fixes later in time
and started to get a good feeling about
Marc Olzheim wrote:
>
>but I'd like a clear answer on
>what to do now in regard to taking FreeBSD 5 into 'real' production...
>
>
>
I'd have to second this request. We rely heavily on the stability and
performance of FreeBSD in our business.
We've only had the occasional stupid hang on our REL
Robert,
First, thank you for your clear reply.
> 90% of useful FreeBSD testing happens when large FreeBSD consumers take
> release of FreeBSD and deploy them in their testbeds and real-world
> environments, and find the bugs through the application of high levels of
> load and obscure hardware
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 08:29:47PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> I think the best way to rectify this is to test RC candidates on YOUR
> hardware.. This finds the bugs you need fixed at a time when people are very
> receptive to fixing them.
>
> It's not realistic for the release engineer to t
On Thursday 21 July 2005 19:27, Marc Olzheim wrote:
> Thank you for expressing my exact same sentiments. I'm still a huge
> FreeBSD fan and switching to anything else (well, perhaps DragonFly)
> seems out of the question, but my faith is being tested a lot lately.
> Having switched some of my compa
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Alexey Yakimovich wrote:
My advice to FreeBSD release engineering team:
- do more testing;
- have it tested with hardware what was published in "Hardware Notes";
- do not release it for production if it is not in production quality;
- reread again what was written by yourse
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 08:43:33PM -0700, Alexey Yakimovich wrote:
> My advice to FreeBSD release engineering team:
> - do more testing;
> - have it tested with hardware what was published in "Hardware Notes";
> - do not release it for production if it is not in production quality;
> - reread agai
86 matches
Mail list logo
