Donald Becker writes:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Christopher E. Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Richard> It might not be a 2.0.36 driver that is needed. It may be the
> > > > Richard> 2.0.36 reliability!
> > > >
> > > > 2.0.36 reliawhat?? If you are looking for GigE performance you are
> > > > likely to want SMP and SMP in 2.0.36 is absolutely not realiable.
> > >
> > > Actually by 2.0.36 its very reliable. It still gives sucky performance.
> >
> > forbin:~# uname -a;uptime
> > Linux forbin 2.0.36 #2 SMP Sun Apr 4 14:04:56 AKDT 1999 i686 unknown
> > 7:40pm up 435 days, 2:43, 1 user, load average: 5.46, 5.30, 5.28
> > Dual PPro 200Mhz, 128M ECC FPM @66mhz
> > Ultra-Wide + Cheetas
> > Box has been rebooted once since the last kernel build, when
> > we lost power for 4 hrs. We had 3.5 hrs backup power.
>
> That beats our cluster record. The longest uptime we had with 2.0.* was
> between the power conditioner shorting out when a fan was being replaced,
> and a whole-room shutdown that was traced to a air conditioner on fire --
> only nine months. The 2.0.3* series was very, very reliable.
% uname -a;uptime
Linux dmz1 2.3.18 #3 Tue Nov 9 19:21:51 MST 1999 i686 unknown
10:37pm up 206 days, 3:20, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
The 2.3.x series isn't that shabby.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:14 EST