We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. (Yes, I know, people are just starting to download it now.) We want and need some of the important fixes that went into -STABLE in the past month (including vital upates to IPFW2), but can't afford to put a release that's not absolutely solid on a production system. (For the same reason, we probably won't go to 5.x until 5.3.) The comment in the release notes suggesting that conservative users stick with 4.8-RELEASE is not encouraging. If 4.9 isn't stable, we may be forced to jump over to OpenBSD 3.4 for new production systems. Will there be a 4.9.1 if there are serious problems in 4.9? --Brett Glass
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, 09:41-0700, Brett Glass wrote:> We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. (Yes, I > know, people are just starting to download it now.) We want and need some of > the important fixes that went into -STABLE in the past month (including vital > upates to IPFW2), but can't afford to put a release that's not absolutely > solid on a production system. (For the same reason, we probably won't go to > 5.x until 5.3.) The comment in the release notes suggesting that conservative > users stick with 4.8-RELEASE is not encouraging. If 4.9 isn't stable, we may > be forced to jump over to OpenBSD 3.4 for new production systems.All our tests show RELENG_4 is quite stable atm. We are going to upgrade all our production systems to 4.9-STABLE in two weeks. -- Maxim Konovalov, maxim@macomnet.ru, maxim@FreeBSD.org
Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.
2003-Oct-29 09:00 UTC
How stable is 4.9-RELEASE proving to be?
Brett Glass wrote:>We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. (Yes, I >know, people are just starting to download it now.) We want and need some of >the important fixes that went into -STABLE in the past month (including vital >upates to IPFW2), but can't afford to put a release that's not absolutely >solid on a production system. (For the same reason, we probably won't go to >5.x until 5.3.) The comment in the release notes suggesting that conservative >users stick with 4.8-RELEASE is not encouraging. If 4.9 isn't stable, we may >be forced to jump over to OpenBSD 3.4 for new production systems. > >Will there be a 4.9.1 if there are serious problems in 4.9? > >--Brett Glass > >$cvsup mysupfile Connected to cvsup11.freebsd.org Updating collection src-all/cvs Edit src/Makefile.inc1 Edit src/UPDATING So far, so good ;-) KDK
:: We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE.
I see you ask this question on a somewhat regular basis about FreeBSD
4.X-{STABLE,RELEASE). Why not just get a spare system you can put online
somewhere and do your own burn-in testing? It's going to be much more
useful than asking thousands of people that (probably) don't have your
specific hardware combination.
Cheers - Erick
Hello Brett, Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 11:41:37 PM, you wrote:> We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. (Yes, I > know, people are just starting to download it now.) We want and need some of > the important fixes that went into -STABLE in the past month (including vital > upates to IPFW2), but can't afford to put a release that's not absolutely > solid on a production system. (For the same reason, we probably won't go to > 5.x until 5.3.) The comment in the release notes suggesting that conservative > users stick with 4.8-RELEASE is not encouraging. If 4.9 isn't stable, we may > be forced to jump over to OpenBSD 3.4 for new production systems.> Will there be a 4.9.1 if there are serious problems in 4.9?it's stable enough for me. we plant to upgrade all servers to 4.9 STABLE ASAP. -- Best regards, zen mailto:zen@tk-pttuntex.com
At 11:41 10/29/2003, Brett Glass wrote:>We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. (Yes, I >know, people are just starting to download it now.) We want and need some of >the important fixes that went into -STABLE in the past month (including vital >upates to IPFW2), but can't afford to put a release that's not absolutely >solid on a production system. (For the same reason, we probably won't go to >5.x until 5.3.) The comment in the release notes suggesting that conservative >users stick with 4.8-RELEASE is not encouraging. If 4.9 isn't stable, we may >be forced to jump over to OpenBSD 3.4 for new production systems. > >Will there be a 4.9.1 if there are serious problems in 4.9?Can't tell you anything about ipfw2 as I'm not using it.. but my update to 4.9-stable is running just fine for a box only up 13hrs since the update. Production DB server, postgres 7.3.4. The box is an SMP athlon with 2GB and an ICP hardware raid. Typically day has a load starting around 0.2, gradually ramping up to 5 or 6, then trailing back off. So far everything is running without a hitch.. where everything is basically the set of ssh, postgresql, and your standard services. Nothing critical or basic seems to be broken. Other boxes to be updated before the end of the week. -Allen
That's a tricky question. But all my machines have been tracking 4-stable, and how found it very stable. I think it comes down to whether you have problematic hardware. Richard Coleman richardcoleman@mindspring.com Brett Glass wrote:> We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. (Yes, I > know, people are just starting to download it now.) We want and need some of > the important fixes that went into -STABLE in the past month (including vital > upates to IPFW2), but can't afford to put a release that's not absolutely > solid on a production system. (For the same reason, we probably won't go to > 5.x until 5.3.) The comment in the release notes suggesting that conservative > users stick with 4.8-RELEASE is not encouraging. If 4.9 isn't stable, we may > be forced to jump over to OpenBSD 3.4 for new production systems.