[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: which version to consider "stable?"

To: "Howard Chu" <hyc@symas.com>
Subject: Re: which version to consider "stable?"
From: "John Madden" <jmadden@ivytech.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:07:32 -0500 (EST)
Cc: "LALOT Dominique" <lalot@univ-aix.fr>, openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org, "Howard Chu" <hyc@symas.com>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <43C3C3AE.3000609@symas.com>
References: <33722.10.0.14.46.1136815479.squirrel@mail.ivytech.edu> <43C37451.4070909@univ-aix.fr> <43C3C3AE.3000609@symas.com>
User-agent: SquirrelMail

> 2.3.16 will probably be marked STABLE later this week. It depends on
> whether anyone reports any new critical bugs...

2.3.16/bdb has now run here for more than 24 hours without a failure, so it's at
the very least a whole lot better than 2.3.11 was.  (This is on Linux 2.6, bdb
4.2, 100,000+ objects, ~4 million operations a day.)

John




-- 
John Madden
UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
jmadden@ivytech.edu

Follow-Ups:
- Re: which version to consider "stable?"
  - From: "John Madden" <jmadden@ivytech.edu>

References:
- which version to consider "stable?"
  - From: "John Madden" <jmadden@ivytech.edu>
- Re: which version to consider "stable?"
  - From: LALOT Dominique <lalot@univ-aix.fr>
- Re: which version to consider "stable?"
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

Prev by Date: RE: syncrepl and glue
Next by Date: Re: Limiting results of search through back-meta
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread