is 5.x still too unstable?

[Gary D. Margiotta]

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
installs.

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.

-Gary

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 veX.net     | www.Vex.Net   | things which he can afford to let alone. HDT
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-isp at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>