Bill Moran writes:
>2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the
> performance problems that folks have been reporting, and
> won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5
> good enough at this point?
If the system isn't really too critical, I'd go for it. I'm run
Matthew Emmerton wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matthew Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Overall "feel" for the stability of FreeBS
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: Overall "feel" for the stability of FreeBSD 5
> I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated
From: "Matthew Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: "Matthew Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated
> > > > backup/archive computer on a network I ad
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matthew Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Overall "feel" for the stability of FreeBSD 5
> From: &qu
From: "Matthew Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated
> > backup/archive computer on a network I administer.
> >
> > I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know
> > that 5 is still
I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated
backup/archive computer on a network I administer.
I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know
that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated)
the warnings that it's not really production quality yet
