[rescue] Solaris not stable till release 2.x?????? WAS::Re: [geeks] Rumors flying
ejb at trick-1.net
Wed Dec 7 18:38:27 CST 2016
I recall the days of SunOS3 on older 68K based machines and SunOS4 on
the i386, 68020/030 and early SPARC machines. Who could forget the joy
of SunView and the hours spent compiling X11 to replace it.
My experience was that on the same hardware i.e. SS20 going from
SunOS4.1.4_u1 to Solaris 2.x resulted in an apparently slower machine.
Even today I have 2 identical SS20's in a rack one with SunOS 4.1.4_u1
and one with Solaris2.6 and I know this is totally subjective and lacks
empirical measurement but the SunOS 4 machine just "feels" more
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, at 10:28 AM, Jerry Kemp wrote:
> I believe that Andrew's comment here is probably the big reason in
> explaining my
> generally favorable experiences with 2.3 and 2.4 , vs poorer comments
> from others.
> Systems I administered/used running 2.3 and 2.4 were smaller, single CPU
> I didn't start working with multi-CPU boxes till at least 2.5.1.
> On 12/ 6/16 08:32 PM, Andrew M Hoerter wrote:
> > Based on stories I've read from inside Sun, those early 2.x years marked a
> > significant change towards fine-grained locking inside the kernel so that SMP
> > systems could scale, which was a perpetual source of subtle and serious bugs;
> > and at the same time, engineers were hobbled by a management structure which
> > frequently overruled them on decisions that impacted release quality.
> > As I think someone else also mentioned, 2.5.1 is the first release that I recall
> > having a good reputation for being reasonably stable at the time.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
More information about the rescue