From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id bbad8ec6 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:44:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 588EC94C01; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:44:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CEE94BEA; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:44:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4449294BEA; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:44:19 +1000 (AEST) Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9225E94BE9 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:44:17 +1000 (AEST) X-Envelope-From: arnold@skeeve.com Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60]) by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x2CCiA6s020774 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:44:11 -0600 Received: (from arnold@localhost) by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id x2CCi99p020772; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:44:09 -0600 From: arnold@skeeve.com Message-Id: <201903121244.x2CCi99p020772@freefriends.org> X-Authentication-Warning: frenzy.freefriends.org: arnold set sender to arnold@skeeve.com using -f Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:44:09 -0600 To: tuhs@ducky.net, lm@mcvoy.com References: <201903100731.x2A7VZJF033832@ducky.net> <7wpnqzj7tr.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <201903102253.x2AMrks8039290@ducky.net> <201903111728.x2BHSNqG045196@ducky.net> <20190311173845.GU31834@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20190311173845.GU31834@mcvoy.com> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [TUHS] a possible source for 4.1BSD tapes X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Larry McVoy wrote: > Other than for history's sake, I don't see the value of 4.1, it wasn't > a great release (even though Masscomp did their changes to 4.1c if I > remember correctly. Clem?). 4.2 was the first release that I remember > being pretty solid and 4.3 improved on that. I'm with Clem; we ran 4.1 at Georgia Tech and it was pretty solid. The big changes in 4.2 were the fast file system, the networking, and how signals worked. The fast file system used more space on the disk for its metadata; people who had nearly full disks on 4.1 didn't have enough room to restore their filesystems with the change to 4.2! Later on I ran two vaxen at the Emory U computing center with 4.2; they were heavily (over)loaded. When 4.3 came out it had a huge amount of fixes and performance tuning; when we switched to 4.3 + NFS from Mt. Xinu we saw a big drop in the load. To this day I am convinced that the move to 4.3 kept us from having to buy more hardware. Arnold