On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Tom Grove wrote:

> I would certainly recommend going with 6.x.  The reason that many of our
> servers still run 4.x is that 5.x got a bad reputation and there really is no
> upgrade path from 4.x to 6.x.  5 and 6 default to using UFS2 and 4 uses UFS
> so, IMHO it's better to rebuild and taking a few hundred users offline for a
> couple of hours whilst this happens isn't fun.
> 
> That's my scenario...I'm sure others have totally different reasons.

In addition to Kris' comments about UFS being perfectly viable for 5.x 
and 6.x: there is an upgrade path, but it's 4.x -> 5.x -> 6.x. FWIW I've 
done this successfully without a hitch*.

jan

* Having said that, I use a liveupgrade-a-like setup with a primary / 
and /usr (that I'm running from) and a secondary (that I rebuild into 
and reboot into). It means I have something solid to fall back to if the 
upgrade fails.

-- 
jan grant, ISYS, University of Bristol. http://www.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44 (0)117 3317661   http://ioctl.org/jan/
That which does not kill us goes straight to our thighs.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to