At 09:43 AM 9/16/99 +0800, Michael Robinson wrote:
>My biggest objection to vinum is that it will do what you tell it to,
>and then complain afterwards, rather than complain about it at the time
>you try to do it. Two good examples:
>
>1. You can add drives partitions that haven't yet been MAKEDE
At 02:30 AM 9/16/99 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> My apologies. I was under the impression that it was still
>considered alpha code, but then I guess if it was it probably
>wouldn't have migrated to the -STABLE tree, now would it?
None needed, but we're not the only ones that assumed that
Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also, keep in mind that vinum does very little in the way of sanity checking.
>> It's very happy to trash your data if you tell it to do something even a
>> little bit unusual.
>>
>> After getting seriously burned (fortunately, during initial system
>> co
"Jeffrey J. Mountin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Like anything it will only do what you tell it, so in a way I'm of agreement.
My biggest objection to vinum is that it will do what you tell it to,
and then complain afterwards, rather than complain about it at the time
you try to do it. Two good
As I recall, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> This is in line with what I would expect for RAID 0 and 1. CPU
> usage just makes the I/O performance measurements more compelling. CPU
> will also be more interesting when it comes to measuring the RAID 5
> performance later.
And you'd particul
At 03:45 AM 9/16/99 +0800, Michael Robinson wrote:
>Also, keep in mind that vinum does very little in the way of sanity checking.
>It's very happy to trash your data if you tell it to do something even a
>little bit unusual.
Like anything it will only do what you tell it, so in a way I'm of agree
At 7:11 PM -0500 1999/9/15, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
> Well Greg considers it a "release" anyway and no longer alpha. Surely it
> may be "under development" still, but then isn't -stable?
My apologies. I was under the impression that it was still
considered alpha code, but then I gue
At 02:09 PM 9/15/99 -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
>Perhaps we're seeing this differently, but "sworn off vinum" says to me
>"never using it again", and that's the point I was trying to make.
>People try something that's still under development, get bitten, and
>then claim forever after that the pro
At 1:43 PM -0700 1999/9/15, Jamie Norwood wrote:
> No offense, but you are wrong and he is right. A 'still under developement'
> product should NOT be used for critical production machines.
You're absolutely right. I believe that even with the latest
code, Greg does not recommend that
* skip the following three paragraphs if you're not interested in the
politics *
This is funny. Not funny "ha ha", but I think it's actually indicative of
the high quality of free software: we have to argue whether pre-release
features/functionality should be used in critical production m
10 matches
Mail list logo
