HP3000-L Archives

March 2005, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Vance, Jeff H (Cupertino)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Vance, Jeff H (Cupertino)
Date:
Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:56:55 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
Dave,

I think it is a pretty safe, low risk to install.  We didn't find a
single regression problem in our testing of the enhancement.

However, if you run the CI with a NM stack size with little room for
expansion, and you use recursive user functions, you can run into CI
stack
overflow and the process (not system!) will abort.  We didn't find stack
overflows in testing regurlar, non-user functions.

HTH,
 Jeff

> What do the wise ones thing of the wisdom/folly of testing 
> beta patches on a production machine ?
> 
> I ask because I am interested in the user function patches 
> (mpemxp9 & mpemxq0 ?), but we only have one 3000, no separate 
> crash-and-burn box.
> 
> Related questions:
> How safe does HP think those patches are?  Can anyone at 
> least promise they won't crash the system ?
> What are the odds of these patches coming off beta anytime soon ?

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2