[rescue] bsd's

[Big Endian]

>On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 12:31, Big Endian wrote:
>>  Not really.  9i broke most of our stuff (don't ask me, I'm just the
>>  sysadmin).  Our DBAs are about as bright as a christmas tree bulb, so
>>  we have to run oracle supported configs... which means redshat, in
>>  this case 7.0.
>
>Well, don't fault the OS for something that was fixed long ago just
>because you can't use the newest version.  I use ext3 and xfs, and
>they're wonderful.  Just because your specific application has you stuck
>in a bad position, doesn't mean that the OS is bad.  I know i wouldn't
>want a machine with big filesystems running ext2, but if i'm stuck in
>that position, i'd blame it on whoever/whatever has me stuck there.
>(sounds like the DBA's).

Well... it *WAS* fixed a long time ago in the bsds and the commercial 
unixes.  I have replaced a bunch of redhat 7.0/7.1/7.2 boxes with 
FreeBSD and Solaris boxes.  In that experience, I have had faster 
restarts when things *DO* go down, less down time in general, and 
*MUCH* easier administration of the servers.  I honestly thing redhat 
went way downhill with 7.x and even some of 6.x.  Its true that I'm 
not running the latest version but such a "feature" as a *REAL* fs 
shouldn't be "new".

daniel
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Fragile. Do not drop." -- Posted on a Boeing 757.