[ Jon Lewis Wrote ]
> What's with the rush to push 2.0.0 out the door? It seems (from the
> number of Oops reports) that 1.3.9x and 1.99.x are far from stable. I've
> got 1.99.1 #1-pre-2.0 running on a test box (old a.out system) and its
> gone 8 hours with very little load (other than a few runs of make -j
> zImage :)...but 8 hours doesn't make a kernel "stable". Just last night,
> a system I thought was stable (1.2.13/1.2.14 cyclades terminal server) died
> horribly after 15 days.
My impression is that 1.2.13/14 has a bug in the tty/ppy/ppp/net/serial
code somewhere which makes it unuseable as a large (64) port terminal server.
It sure would be nice if this was resolved for 2.0. Jon, Is there any chance
of you testing the latest 1.99.x on your big rocketport/cyclades systems
to see if the problem has been fixed. I know you thought it might be the
cyclades but I see your rocketport has crashed now. If you really have time
to burn ;) , put the rocketport back on a 486 where it crashed sooner and
see how it does with 1.99.x.