A few questions I can't find in archive...

[Pete]

Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:

>Hi!
>
>
>
>>>Running Fedora?  Maybe I outta switch!  I think it all boils down to
>>>the controller and what drivers the distro has available for it.  It
>>>may be that the combo Nick is looking at would work great, but just
>>>wanted him to walk into it w/his eyes open.  But he says he may go to
>>>SCSI - probably can't go wrong w/that though it costs a bit more...
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Mmmm... personally I would advise against it for the moment.  Wait for a
>>more stable version to come out.  The current version is basically an alpha
>>release.  I tried it out on my laptop and after about a week of trying to
>>make it useable I had to give up and revert back to Red Hat 9.
>>
>>
>
>We process around 2M mails daily on our mailcluster and i would recommend
>upgrading any RH9 box to CORE-1, it simply run much faster. We did some
>test on that. Also the ram usage is much better with the kernel supplied
>with that distribution.
>
>Its certainly not an alpha release, i am involved with Fedora myself also,
>we run a mirror from the start, even before the merger with RedHat. Its
>mostly RedHat people doing this and you even might consider it RH 9.1 or
>RH 10.
>
>I hope you wont project your experience using it on your labtop how it
>would perform on mailservers. And thats, i think, what we are talking
>about here.
>
>If you can afford is you should perhaps try RH ES, those are compiled with
>a different optimized compiler. So high end either RH ES (Or Whitebox) :)
>
>Just my 2 cents.
>
>Bye,
>Raymond.
>
>
>
>
>
Is it possible to actually upgrade from RH9 to Fedora core? Or does this
mean a system rebuild?

I have RH9 on bothy our MS machines, which are a Duel p200 and a single
p200 NEC server class machines - you think i would notice even the
slightest speed improvement from RH9 to Fed Core?