On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Osma Ahvenlampi wrote:
> steve rader wrote:
> > Is it safe to assume 2.0.36 is more stable with 0.9x than
> > with 0.42?
>
> Well, I've run a busy file server with 2.0.3x and 0.9x RAID patches from
> november/december in uninterrupted production use without a single
> problem (at RAID-5). I don't know about the stability of 0.42, but this
> setup certainly is stable.
I have run quite busy mail/www server about a year with 2.0.34 and
raid145-0.36.3-2.0.30 patch. It is in production use and I haven't had
opportunity to update kernel and raid-pacth. It have been very usable,
though. It have never crashed. No error messages in console or
/var/log/message. Performance is also quite good.
Did anybody remember was there any big bugs in
raid145-0.36.3-2.0.30-patch? If I deside to update raid and kernel, is
there any problems with that old patch. I don't find any version number
in raidtool-binaries and I have deleted raidtools source tree and
tar-ball. But I think that it is somethink between 0.30 and 0.49.
-->[EMAIL PROTECTED] [ 5.02.1999]
-<From the Linux-quote-collection>-
"Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk ?"
Microsoft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !!
(By [EMAIL PROTECTED], Felix von Leitner)
