Hi,
On 11.02.2003 20:16 Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:08:32AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> For starters, the patch you downloaded is a development snapshot, so if
> it's stable, you're just lucky - it has not undergone extensive testing.
Is it really that bad? I'm in the process of setting up a server with
~2.5 TB of XFS storage, and was just about to go for the linux-2.4-xfs
cvs-tree. Plain 2.4.19 woun't do for me, since there's a hard lockup
bug in the tg3 driver that wasn't fixed before 2.4.20rc3:
I'm using xfs-cvs since last August on an NFS Server with 4.3 TB with almost
no problems at all. We had some NFS server problems, but these got fixed only
some days after that bug got public (Bug #186, I think). Other problems were
related to Intel's e1000 driver, which got better with 2.4.20. For our use,
xfs-cvs _is_ very stable. But, of course, it's always good to test with your
Envrionment, before leaving for production use...
Besides this, you always could ask for patches for the tg3 (Jeff Garzik, I
think, is the man who cares about that drivers on lkml) against 2.4.19!
Christian
|