=09Hi,

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-2] Micha=B3 Pasternak wrote:

> > =09I cannot agree with you. Have you yet run NetBSD and Linux with a
> > bad HD? In most cases Linux will just lock, panic or reboot (*this* is
>
> You run NetBSD with bad HDDs on your production machines? Congrats!

=09This is not usual, but at least this server is still up thanks to
NetBSD's awesome code. I couldn't say the same for a server that crashed
in 2001 after a hardware failure that just trashed all the filesystem.
Guess what OS it was running? This server was 700km far from where I was,
and I had to take a plane so people could start working again. If they had
a slower but safer system, they could have paid for a faster machine
instead of spending in air tickets and my time, despite de downtime.


> > =09And for old crap hardware, my machine is a Dual Pentium III with a
> > VIA686B controller (I know it's still crap, but now that old), and Linu=
x
> > will not set drives to run at DMA mode by default (even windows does).
>
> I always thought it's better to have _safe_ settings turned on and leave
> potentailly dangerous tweaks to user.

=09Do you consider using DMA a potentially dangerous procedure? So I
should underclock my CPU instead of running it at it's nominal speed just
because a cooler failure could be harmful?

=09Well, anyway, it's not me/us who should prove that NetBSD has a
faster/more robust system. You're claiming so faithfully what you said to
be true, but has yet just created noise and presented no proofs or even a
reasonable argument. I, however, respect your beliefs.


=09[]s
=09Ricardo.