Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Monday, May 11, 2009 9:06 AM -0400 Aaron Richton > <rich...@nbcs.rutgers.edu> wrote: > >> I've had a spurt of bad luck with 2.4.16 (it appears Quanah and a few >> others may share that opinion). The seg faults inspired me to run under >> libumem, which has some interesting features that give you "moderate" >> debug ability in exchange for moderate performance hit -- small enough >> that I can run it hot safely, unlike full-featured memory debuggers. >> >> At this point a RE24 checkout from late Saturday has been good for me in >> production, with some moderate libumem checks enabled. Is everybody else >> starting to see RE24 shape up? Bottom line...I think I'm now +1 for >> encouraging a 2.4.17 train, for what it's worth... > > Overall, RE24 looks a lot better than 2.4.16, yes.
I'm still experiencing make test to fail occassionally in various tests (e.g. see ITS#6126). Ciao, Michael.
