6.1 recommended instead of 5.x for new installations [was: Efficacy vs. "friendliness"]

[Jerold McAllister]

Pete Slagle writes: 

> jdow wrote: 
> 
>> I noticed that FreeBSD 5.x was somewhat quicker than that to get up,
>> running, and up to date.
> 
> I can't think of a good reason to use FreeBSD 5.x for a new
> installation; 6.1 contains so many reliability and performance
> improvements that it is the clear choice over 5.5. 
> 
> (Upgrades are of course a more complicated question.) 
> 

The reason I have is that none of the AFS clients will run on 6.1, but
they are supposed to run under 5.x.    I am about to embark on a test of
it under 5.5 this afternoon.   I know OpenAFS fails under 6.1.   Although
it seems to build OK - and even starts up, as soon as I try to go to a
directory, it crashes the whole system with a partial error message from
lock manager. Something similar is true of the ARLA AFS client port. 

So,  there can be a reason, though it is not overall system quality. 

////jerry 

ps.  If anyone knows enough about the new locks (or locks in general), it
    would be nice to have someone make the changes for the FreeBSD 6.xx
    versions of OpenAFS and Arla.   It is really beyond my knowledge. 

> _______________________________________________
> 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" 
>