Hi List, First of all, I'm new regarding FreeBSD, But i'm an experienced linux user who's been using the Trustix distribution for the last few years, so please bear with me. In my time using Trustix, and participating in the mailing lists, it has proven an exceptionally stable server distribution. Recently though, I've been playing around with FreeBSD 5.4 on a vmware box, and I'm beginning to think it may be the way forward in the long run. Having observed freebsd-stable@freebsd.org for the last couple of weeks, I've noticed a worrying (to me) amount of traffic regarding kernel panics, general instability etc, and I'm now posting this in the hope that I might obtain perspective on this from some experienced FreeBSD users. In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? I realise that the FreeBSD user base is a much larger one than the Trustix user base, and I could be led to believe that the vast majority of people using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general impression that "something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4? Anyone care to share their thoughts? Cheers, David Hogan
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:13:16AM +1000, David Hogan wrote:> Hi List, > > First of all, I'm new regarding FreeBSD, But i'm an experienced linux user > who's been using the Trustix distribution for the last few years, so please > bear with me. In my time using Trustix, and participating in the mailing > lists, it has proven an exceptionally stable server distribution. > > Recently though, I've been playing around with FreeBSD 5.4 on a vmware box, > and I'm beginning to think it may be the way forward in the long run. Having > observed freebsd-stable@freebsd.org for the last couple of weeks, I've > noticed a worrying (to me) amount of traffic regarding kernel panics, > general instability etc, and I'm now posting this in the hope that I might > obtain perspective on this from some experienced FreeBSD users. > > In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious > kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or > a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? I > realise that the FreeBSD user base is a much larger one than the Trustix > user base, and I could be led to believe that the vast majority of people > using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general impression that > "something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release.That's certainly not how I see it. Of course, you only see reports from people who experience problems, not from all those who don't.> If I were to deploy a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD > user use 4.11 or 5.4?You really want 5.4 unless you have specific reasons to stick with the older branch. Kris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050607/9e8eb552/attachment.bin
On 2005-06-08, David Hogan wrote:> Recently though, I've been playing around with FreeBSD 5.4 on a vmware box, > and I'm beginning to think it may be the way forward in the long run. Having > observed freebsd-stable@freebsd.org for the last couple of weeks, I've > noticed a worrying (to me) amount of traffic regarding kernel panics, > general instability etc, and I'm now posting this in the hope that I might > obtain perspective on this from some experienced FreeBSD users. > > In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious > kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or > a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? I > realise that the FreeBSD user base is a much larger one than the Trustix > user base, and I could be led to believe that the vast majority of people > using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general impression that > "something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy > a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4?I'm currently moving all my customers from 4.x to 5.4 (having run 5.3 and 5.4 on my own machines for some months). I would not move if they used multi-processor machines or non-Intel machines -- but I would not allow my customers to use stuff like that anyway, as none of it is really ready for production use. If you're using standard uni-processor Intel boxes, there's no reason not to go with 5.4; and there are lots of reasons to go with it (and with 6.2 or so when it comes out). Greg
At 08:13 PM 07/06/2005, David Hogan wrote:>using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general impression that >"something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release.It always depends on what hardware you are using, whether RELENG_4 or RELENG_5.>If I were to deploy >a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4?RELENG_5 for sure. We have a number of CPU intensive boxes (20+) handling mail / virus scanning and IPSEC terminations. They are the way go to. Our mail routers can get blasted with a good 1000+ processes at times.. Again, no issues. IPSEC is a good example where you have a more stable box in RELENG_5 then RELENG_4. There are a number of bugs and issues in RELENG_4 that are gone in RELENG_5 ---Mike
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:13:16AM +1000, David Hogan wrote:> [...] > .. it's just my general impression that > "something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy > a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4?I'd say go for 5.4. 5.4 runs rock stable here on amd64. Have 5.4 running even very stable on vmware as well under XP like you. Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/
On Wed, 2005-Jun-08 10:13:16 +1000, David Hogan wrote:>Recently though, I've been playing around with FreeBSD 5.4 on a vmware box, >and I'm beginning to think it may be the way forward in the long run. Having >observed freebsd-stable@freebsd.org for the last couple of weeks, I've >noticed a worrying (to me) amount of traffic regarding kernel panics, >general instability etc, and I'm now posting this in the hope that I might >obtain perspective on this from some experienced FreeBSD users.IMHO, just reading this mailing list will give you an overly negative view of FreeBSD's stability. My experiences are that FreeBSD 5.4 using a GENERIC kernel (or something close to it) is quite stable. I'm only aware of one issue - relating to an interaction between mysnc(2) and UFS2 snapshots - and that hasn't affected me so far.. Most of the problems I've seen on this list relate to one or more of: - Experimenting with the ULE scheduler (which is not used by default) - Experimenting with PREEMPTION (which is off by default) - Having machines with 4GB or more of RAM - Running 5-STABLE (the development version) rather than 5.4 - Having filesystems with lots (>>1e6) of inodes - Unusual hardware (eg laptops) My suggestion is that you install your application suite on FreeBSD 5.4 (either native or within VMware) and experiment for a while. Your own applications are by far the best test. If you're happy with FreeBSD, switch over. If you run into problems, let us know. At this stage, I would recommend 5.4 over 4.11. -- Peter Jeremy
David Hogan wrote:> In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious > kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or > a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? IIf that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be careless to migrate now. If it works, why change it? My experience with the 5.x tree so far is that it's ok for a SOHO or private environment but I wouldn't trust it if my money (or job) depended on it. Maybe in a year, or two but not now. mkb.
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:13 PM, David Hogan wrote:> using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general > impression that > "something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were > to deploy > a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4? >5.4 without question. I'm planning a migration of my 2 rack-fulls of 4.11 boxes to 5.4 (or 5.5 depending on how long the planning takes :-) Vivek Khera, Ph.D. +1-301-869-4449 x806
pgsql# uptime 9:35PM up 235 days, 11:12, 1 user, load averages: 1.40, 1.17, 1.11 pgsql# uname -v FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE #0: Wed Jul 28 18:02:39 CEST 2004 root@pgsql:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/PGSQL I gues uptime would be even greater if I didn't have power failure and UPS was empty. So far with 5.4 I have experienced problems on Dell Power Edge 1650SC (but that problem seems to be gone with HTT disabled and I did cvsup few times after installing RELEASE). I'm running many heavy loaded servers on 5.4 and I think that it is stable. Sometimes I'm thinking about running 6.0-CURRENT on production servers :)) Regards, gg.
> "something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy > a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4?My experience: go 5.3 or 4.11, but avoid 5.4. Here's why: I've downgraded my main amd64 tower & 386 laptop from 5.4 to 5.3. I've also abandoned amd64 for i386. (PS ref. `seasoned' I've been with FreeBSD since before it had release numbers :-) I havent had time to analyse or dmesg all my problems, but I got tired of 5.4 & amd64 pain & needed lost functionality back. Both those boxes are dual boot partitons, but both just had main 5.4-rel. & spare 5.4-rel for rescue. Now I've wound back to 5.3 & regained my lost functionality, I'll be taking one but Not both partitions on one or each host, forward to (possibly) 5.4-rel, or more likely stable or current & amd64 native (for the one box) again, & analysing problems & fixing &/ or bug reporting with dmesg etc. But the one thing I will Not be doing is raising all partitions to 5.4. 5.4-rel is a pain here, 5.3-rel. is better for me. A few problems I've had include: rdist works on 5.3 source host, but not from 5.4+amd64 (yes, I'm sure someone's out there will work, but Mine doesn't (user & su) & does with 5.3, which iis all that maters to me :-) also rdist depends on which of rdist & rdist6 & 44bsd-rdist, & which protocol, & what version other end etc, which is why I'd not mentioned till now, & yes I know rsync works too, but I'm comfortable with rdist[6]) & 5.3, not 5.4. usbd (i386+5.4) fails to recognise my sim card on a USB Cruzer, but 5.3 works OK various ports dont work for amd64 (or say they dont even if they do. ports/ (as usual/ often) is a mess, various broken things, competing versions & a host of other niggles, (well I use a Lot of ports, to be precise I use all of http://berklix.com/~jhs/src/bsd/fixes/FreeBSD/ports/jhs/*/Makefile.local & life's too short to document & fix all problems, (+ prob reports dont belong here but in dmesg. or ports@) make has a problem on amd64 5.4-rel., I reported it, & tested & reported OK on fixes from Harti Brandt, who wrote Thu, 2 Jun: I have committed it to RELENG_5. I've set the MFC timer to two weeks. GCC 3.4.2 on 5.4-RELEASE has a bug for amd64, I started avoiding that by putting CFLAGS= -O0 in /etc/make.conf More info from: Message from "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> of "Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:26:15 PDT." <20050602082615.GA36096@dragon.NUXI.org> I think I had some other problems I can't remember off hand, but I got tired of agravation so retreated to 5.3-rel. I also run 4.10, 4.11 & various 5.* on other gates, net servers, & internal hosts. Doubtless 5.4 has loads of great additions over 5.3, doubtless most of my hastles can be fixed/ avoided/ diagnosed etc, but it was just too much hastle all at once, hence my "back to 5.3 & forward to stable on just one partition" dual approach. This is Not a complaint, I still Really like FreeBSD, I'm just less enthusiastic about 5.4-RELEASE than 5.3. (Perhaps one might find others saying the opposite probably depends what features one uses). - Julian Stacey Net & Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Mail in Ascii (Html=Spam). Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:42:45 -0400 Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> wrote:> At 12:20 PM 08/06/2005, Matthias Buelow wrote: > > >I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it > >was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different > >universes. > > Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I > think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the > OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ?It is safe saying a lot has changed since releng_5_3. The most imporant, imo, were those that happened shortly after releng_5_3 was released. Those fixed a few annoying problems I had with it. I feel perfectly safe running 5.4 in a production enviroment. Never had any problems with it.
Jonathan Noack
2005-Jun-13 20:06 UTC
FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
On 06/13/05 14:26, Rasmus Kaj wrote:>>>>>>"KK" == Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes: > KK> And what was wrong with casting your eye one line down, clicking on > KK> "Message-ID" and entering it in the search box at > > KK> http://www.freebsd.org/search/search-mid.html > > Ah, there it is. Thank you! > > KK> Is it really rendered in an invisible font for several people not to > KK> have seen it? > > Close; it is rendered only it what seems to be a table of contentes > for the current page, but actually is a combination of a "local toc" > and a liks collection. Not the most user-friendly device in a web > page ...Even if it was only a table of contents for that page, why not read it? Navigation is provided to save you time. Regardless of whether it is a table of contents for the page, a collection of links, or a combination of the two, it is still relevant. -- Jonathan Noack | noackjr@alumni.rice.edu | OpenPGP: 0x991D8195 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050613/bab008a0/signature.bin