I see that 6.3 and 7.0 is comming. Now I'm using 6.2-RELEASE for
my servers. To what should I upgrade? Which of them will be stable
or production release?
--
One cannot sell the earth upon which the people walk
Tacunka Witco
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:23:46PM +0100, Marko Lerota wrote:> I see that 6.3 and 7.0 is comming. Now I'm using 6.2-RELEASE for > my servers. To what should I upgrade? Which of them will be stable > or production release?I would not use dot-zero release for production without excessive local testing period (read: at least until dot-one :) Eugene Grosbein
> I see that 6.3 and 7.0 is comming. Now I'm using 6.2-RELEASE for > my servers. To what should I upgrade? Which of them will be stable > or production release?I'm deploying FreeBSD 7 on my webservers, because they are loadbalanced. But I will not deploy ver. 7 on my db-server until I get to ver. 7.1. Other than that ver. 7 is very stable and I have not had any reboots (using ufs as fs). So if the server is very critical I would stay on the 6.x release-branch. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare
Marko Lerota wrote:> I see that 6.3 and 7.0 is comming. Now I'm using 6.2-RELEASE for > my servers. To what should I upgrade? Which of them will be stable > or production release? > >Both of them will be production stable at release, i'd say that unless you have reason, such as non-supported hardware in 7, to stay with the 6-branch upgrade to 7-RELEASE. 6.3 will afaik be the last revision to the 6 branch aside from bug/security fixes. Dylan
Marko Lerota wrote:> I see that 6.3 and 7.0 is comming. Now I'm using 6.2-RELEASE for > my servers. To what should I upgrade? Which of them will be stable > or production release?For low-loaded machines, 7.0 is stable enough even with all the new goodies like ZFS, tmpfs, ULE - I have such a machine with almost 30 days uptime and have done 24h+ stress testing on another machine before blessing it for production - but I still wouldn't trust it for mission critical "heads will roll" type of servers. If you can, try it on a spare or lightly loaded server, it's worth it.
Looking at the Overview of FreeBSD-7.0, I would use it as my production, as long as my fail over servers are standby (e.g. postgres with PITR, MySQL-5.0 with replication). But if you are using 1 server for production use FreeBSD-6.3-R. My 2 cents for FreeBSD-7.0-R. br, On Nov 14, 2007 7:23 PM, Marko Lerota <mlerota@iskon.hr> wrote:> I see that 6.3 and 7.0 is comming. Now I'm using 6.2-RELEASE for > my servers. To what should I upgrade? Which of them will be stable > or production release? > > -- > One cannot sell the earth upon which the people walk > Tacunka Witco > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >-- Jimmy B. Lim j i m m y b l i m @ g m a i l . c o m
Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:31:19 +0000 (GMT) Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> wrote:> I feel that the 7.0 kernel will prove to be one of our most stable, > not to mention most performant, .0 releases to date.Unfortunately, that's not true. For example, parallel printing crashes my amd64 system since the beginning of May. I've posted PR (kern/116669) which is still open. Some other people have reported about similar problems. To my mind it's a stopper defect for 7.0 because parallel printing is one of the basic computer tasks. FreeBSD was one of the best print servers for years. But at present it cannot be used in such a role (at least on amd64). Regards, Serguey.