is 5.x still too unstable?

Gary D. Margiotta gary at
Wed Sep 10 14:30:01 PDT 2003

All my production servers are running some variant of 4.x, mostly
4-STABLE, although I have some 4.x-RELEASE boxes still running original

I won't upgrade my production machines, which house customer web services
until at the very least 5-CURRENT branches off into 5-STABLE and
6-CURRENT.  I'm hoping to test outa build for a new production box after
5.2-RELEASE, but probably won't be doing any serious upgrades until 5.3 at
the earliest.

We're running a couple 5-CURRENT boxes for personal machines,
workstations, etc, but 4.x is rock solid, and still has more than enough
horsepower for our applications.

If you want to make an impression, use 4-STABLE, show them how rock solid
the boxes are, and then tell them that they're only going to get better
when 5.x comes production ready.


Running Windows is kinda like playing blackjack:
User stays on success, reboots on failure

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Tim Middleton wrote:

> I am hoping to move some of the servers in our ISP to FreeBSD. I have been 
> rather hoping 5.2 would be reliable enough, so that we can move to it and 
> enjoy all the -CURRENT goodness. 
> The test server locked up yesterday, during some heavy port building, after 
> running for weeks with no problem.  (-; I've not gone to investigate the 
> cause yet. But it has me nervous. It's been difficult to get FreeBSD accepted 
> at all here, so I'm wanting it to make a good impression.
> I have run 5 at home since 5.0-Release (currently 20030821 snapshot); and 
> while there have been problems now and again with a few builds, once these 
> have been solved my system here has been really very stable, which gave me 
> hope it would be also OK for work... 
> So what is the general opinion of those here? Should i play it safe and go 
> back to 4.x until 5.x becomes officially "stable". Or do people think that 
> for most general purpose stuff 5.x should be generally stable "enough"? 
> "Enough" is a bit of a difficult word to define... of course one wants rock 
> solid for a server... but one may be able to tolerate some sorts of problems 
> as long as they can be sorted out quickly, and things are moving towards 
> ultimate stability in the near future. These aren't huge servers (no 
> multi-processor)... but moderately busy. Running the usual sorts of things... 
> apache, postfix, python, zope, nfs, etc. 
> I realise my post may be a little premature when I haven't even checked out 
> what seems to have taken the test box down yet; but it's been on my mind to 
> solicit opinions here before this happened, so... any thoughts or experiences 
> running 5x on ISP servers to share out there? Are some snapshots known to be 
> better than others? Any tips/tweaks on making 5.x just a little more 
> stable---even at the cost of performance---than a default install (like 
> disabling acpi, as the first thing).
> -- 
> Tim Middleton | Cain Gang Ltd | A man is rich in proportion to the number of
> x at     | www.Vex.Net   | things which he can afford to let alone. HDT
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-isp at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe at"

More information about the freebsd-isp mailing list