> 2.3.16 will likely be marked stable in the very near future. I would use > 2.3.13 or 2.3.16 over 2.3.11. (14 & 15 have a performance bug fixed in .16).
Welp, I didn't have much choice. I had a make && make test sitting on the box just in case there was a crash today (it wasn't dying very often under the less-than-max load), but it only lasted about 4 hours, so I took my chances and went `make install` after the crash. Time will tell, I suppose, just how much better 2.3.16 is than 2.3.11. I am seeing some unfriendly cpu usage but I haven't had time yet to track down where it's coming from; more on that later. John -- John Madden UNIX Systems Engineer Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana [EMAIL PROTECTED]
