On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Vivek Khera wrote:
> >>>>> "MS" == Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> FreeBSD has a tendency to panic in out of mbuf situations. That
> >> shouldn't happen.
>
> MS> The semantics of "should" and "shouldn't" are debatable. In this case,
> MS> the panic is a simple indicator that the administrator hasn't correctly
> MS> tuned the system. Many would argue that this is a much better outcome
> MS> than a system that performs poorly for no immediately perceptible reason,
> MS> and it certainly encourages the prompt application of a correct
> MS> adjustment.
>
> I come from the school of thought that nothing should make the system
> crash. It should try its hardest to handle the workload thrown at it.
> Under no circumstances is a panic acceptable. The system should at
> worst drop some connections and issue a warning, or plod through and
> issue a warning. Kernel panic is *never* the right thing to do, and
> should be considered an error in the kernel.
>
> It is this kind of cavalier attitude towards system problems that
> makes people scared of using open source systems.
>
I think it is ultimately a religious issue and not a customer issue which
is why FreeBSD has the strengths that it does and the weaknesses that it
does. David Greenman backed me up when I said the same thing. However,
there are numerous others in the FreeBSD group who believe that it is the
users' responsibility.
-Kip
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
