HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

[Gary Kline]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:31:17AM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > A "me too" here for 5-Stable.
> > 
> > I have a test PC, that was running 5-Stable using an
> > additional swapfile to extend swap space. Never any
> > problems at all with 5.
> > 
> > After upgrading to 6-stable, I got regular hang-ups of
> > the system (endless loop?) when swapspace is used
> > extensively. Never happened with 5.

	I didn't move until 5 until 5.2+; it was a major move.
	There were lots of things to get-right.  So maybe by
	6.5, 6 will be granite stable.

	I've been using FBSD since 2.0.5, and while lots of solid
	features have been thoughtfully added, I just don't see
	that 6 buys that much more than 5.x.   Maybe 7.x, tho...

	gary

> 
> I have to add my vote for 6, as did someone else in an earlier post. 
> Like some others, I always found 5.x a bit slower than 4.x  (No
> benchmarks, completely subjective.)  From the very beginning, I've found
> 6.x to be stable and quickly moved some non-critical servers to it.
> 
> After testing, we moved the more critical servers to it as well, and
> have been quite happy withe results.  
> 
> Again, completely subjective, but from the beginning 6.x seemed faster
> and more responsive than 5.x
> 

	Hmm.  A series of benchmarks might prove some points.  
	Back in Aug, 2001 I ran stress tests and other benchmarks 
	to test *this* hardware.  I pushed things to a loadave of
	> 70.   Everything held.  

	Maybe we should consider something like this.  A series of
	hard stress tests as well as objective benchmarks as we go
	forward.  It would give one some metrics... .

	gary



-- 
   Gary Kline     kline at thought.org   www.thought.org     Public service Unix