On Friday 22 August 2003 11:15, Philip Paeps wrote:
> On 2003-08-16 18:10:38 (-0400), Eriq Lamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On i386 hardware and two processors amd mp. should I wait for 5.2.
>
> I've been running 5.1-current on a few servers, and I've not bumped
> into any serious problems. I
On 2003-08-16 18:10:38 (-0400), Eriq Lamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On i386 hardware and two processors amd mp. should I wait for 5.2.
I've been running 5.1-current on a few servers, and I've not bumped into any
serious problems. I have -stable machines nearby 'just in case' though, and
my ba
>-Ursprungligt meddelande-
>Fran: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>On i386 hardware and two processors amd mp. should I wait for 5.2.
We have been using for some time, we use -CURRENT as FireWalls and as
webservers, we have half our production split between STABLE and -CURRENT
machines, so that if/wh
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 06:10:38PM -0400, Eriq Lamar wrote:
> On i386 hardware and two processors amd mp. should I wait for 5.2.
(*shrug*) some people are already using it. It is very stable for most
people now, but if you run into a bug, it is probably a show-stopper
type.
If you have multiple
On Saturday 16 August 2003 18:10, Eriq Lamar wrote:
> On i386 hardware and two processors amd mp. should I wait for 5.2.
You should probably wait until a release is tagged RELENG_5, indicating that
it's considered stable.
--
brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] [EMAIL PROTECTE
On i386 hardware and two processors amd mp. should I wait for 5.2.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
