Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x

[listvj]

Lane wrote:
> On Monday 11 December 2006 01:18, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>   
>> listvj wrote:
>>     
>>> I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x.  I currently track 4.x
>>> stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade.
>>>
>>> First, should I bother?  My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors
>>> with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4).  I host email and web
>>> sites for a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured
>>> on it which will have to be upgraded too.  I have users counting
>>> particularly on mail service not being down for too long.
>>>
>>> Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone
>>> tell me:
>>>
>>> 1)  Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading
>>> 2)  Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading
>>> 3)  Also any general advice from personal experience.
>>> 4)  Just how risky is this?
>>>       
>> Uh -- why upgrade to a branch (5.x) that has already had it's last
>> release and is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x?  You should
>> really be looking at upgrading to 6.2-RELEASE just as soon as it
>> comes out (Real Soon Now).
>>
>> As for risk -- for various reasons you will be better off doing a
>> clean install of 6.x and rebuilding your server from the ground up.
>> It's no more risky than installing any other server -- unless you
>> have some legacy binary-only application that you absolutely have
>> to run, it is virtually certain to succeed.
>>
>> You biggest problem would seem to be the downtime required to do
>> the update -- if you can manage it, probably the least consumer
>> impact method is building the upgraded system on fresh disks on a
>> scratch box, and then finishing the upgrade by a disk-swap.  Which
>> also has the added benefit that you have a ready-made back out
>> path.
>>
>> 	Cheers,
>>
>> 	Matthew
>>     
> Matthew,
>
> I agree with your advice to build the new server with a clean install, if only 
> to prevent any sendmail issues.
>
> But I'm not so sure I understand your assessment that 5.x is "worse performing 
> than both 4.x and 6.x."  While I agree that 6.x is a great improvement in 
> functionality over 5.x, I was not aware of the poor performance record of 
> 5.x.  
>
> Do you know of any links to benchmark tests, or other data, which would 
> provide some more background on this?
>
> That kind of data would greatly influence my opinion in this discussion.  
> Without it I'd be pleased to recommend 5.X, regardless of it's pending "drop 
> dead" date, wrt support.  I certainly see no need to chain myself to any 
> software release cycle, nor, it seems, does the original poster.  I'm in awe 
> of his patience, and clearly he is satisfied with the product if he remains 
> on 4.11.
>
> Thanks,
>
> lane
> ~Still running 5.x
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>   
I'm on 4.11 because I'm lazy and chicken.  The server is co-located so 
it isn't real convenient to do major upgrades.  It might actually be 
easier and more cost effective (in terms of my time) to get a 
replacement box, set up 6.0 on it, and migrate.

Btw, I'm sorry for posting this question twice.  I posted the first one 
with the wrong email address.  I was surprised (and disappointed) to see 
that the list accepted it as I did not subscribe to the list with that 
address. :(