pls.which.way.to.go?

[Gábor Kövesdán]

Kay Abendroth wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
> I would upgrade to 5.5 first.
> Then it's up to you, but waiting for 6.3 is probably not a bad idea,
> before going further up the hill to 6.x.
>
>
> Wlodek Kraterski wrote:
>   
>>    
>>  
>>
>>
>>    I'm running now 4.11 and I'm quite happy.
>>    
>>
>>
>>    However, I did get my hands on new box:
>>    IBM x230 with 2X1gig intel 6x.X.SCSI.X.33.6 and 3 gig of ram.
>>    My old server is basicaly a web server with cgi and php, hosting my
>>    own web   sites.
>>    
>>
>>
>>    I would like to upgrade the whole thing.
>>    Which way to go?
>>    5.5?
>>    6.1
>>    or just stick with the 4.11
>>    
>>
>>
>>    thanks
>>    regards
>>    
>>
>>
>>    wlodek
>>    
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>     
>
>   
You mean 6.2, right? It is the next release, 6.3 is much farther. I 
don't exactly see the situation, since you mentioned the new box and 
used the word upgrade. Does that mean that you install FreeBSD from 
scratch to the new box or keep the existing installation and just 
upgrade it? If you install from scratch, I'd suggest 6.1. There's no 
good reason why using the older 5.5. I'd only try it if 6.1 fails to 
work in any way. In the other case, if you want to do a source upgrade 
on the existing installation, you must go to 5.5 first, you can't 
directly upgrade to 6.X from 4.11. After you are at 5.5, you can go to 
6.1, it's up to you. And one more thing: if you can install from 
scratch, that's better, since 4.11 used the older UFS file system, while 
recent 5.X and 6.X installers create UFS2 at default, which is faster 
and more reliable.

P.S.: Please don't top-post. On these lists the preferred way is to 
write replies under the original message.

-- 
Cheers,

Gabor