Phil,
thanks for the input .. i'll look into upgrading to 6.5.9
-rich
Phil Ehrens wrote:
>
> Well, since you're not Senator Richard Drake, I'll
> tell you that we have found 6.5.9 to be a pretty
> good release. We have run a couple of million
> jobs using 6.5.9 and it has seemed better behaved
> than previous releases, though I do not have data
> correlated to lam release numbers.
>
> The lam team generally does a good job of moving
> in a forward direction from release to release.
>
> I am not suggesting that you subvert your SQA
> procedures, but that you may be cutting yourself
> off from community support if and when you need
> it by maintaining an attachment to legacy code.
>
> Just my 2c.
>
> Phil
>
> Richard Drake wrote:
> >
> > this is Richard Drake at Sandia National Labs.
> >
> > we have been using and running our Software Quality Assurance
> > processes on the lam 6.5.4 version of LAM/MPI.
> > we are still using it just because we know it works.
>
> _______________________________________________
> This list is archived at http://www.lam-mpi.org/MailArchives/lam/
|
