tracking -stable in the enterprise

Freddie Cash fjwcash at
Wed Jun 25 16:16:55 UTC 2008

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Claus Guttesen <kometen at> wrote:
>>> FWIW, Yahoo! tracks -stable branches, not point releases.
>> I'm curious about this (and stealing the dead thread).
>> How does one track -stable in an enterprise environment?  I assume that what
>> you mean is "we pick points in -stable that we believe are stable enough and
>> create a snapshot from this point that we test and roll out to production"
>> ...?  Am I wrong?
> I only have a handfull of web-servers so I do a 'make buildworld' and
> -kernel on one server and then nfs-mount it from the other servers
> (remember mount-root-option if doing this). I don't have any problems
> running stable if it works. So I usually just upgrade one server to
> whatever stable is at that moment and if it runs without problems for
> a while I upgrade the remaining servers a few days apart.

That's pretty much what we do as well, here in the local school district.

We track the -stable and -current mailing lists, read all the Head's
Up messages, and read through cvsweb logs for the devices/apps we're
interested in.  When there's a commit that interests us, we update the
source tree to after that commit, run through the buildworld cycle on
a test box, make sure everything works over a few days/weeks, and then
export /usr/obj and /usr/src to the systems we want to upgrade.

It's not all that time consuming, even though it's just me doing the work.

> When it comes to our db-server I usually track release, but since my
> web-servers and db-server is the same hardware I'm somewhat confident
> that an upgrade to stable  will work if the need to do so arises.

We keep all our server hardware as identical as possible, which
greatly simplifies things.  We have four hardware profiles that run
FreeBSD, and only two of those track -STABLE.

Freddie Cash
fjwcash at

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list