Lane wrote:
On Monday 11 December 2006 01:18, Matthew Seaman wrote:
listvj wrote:
I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x.  I currently track 4.x
stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade.

First, should I bother?  My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors
with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4).  I host email and web
sites for a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured
on it which will have to be upgraded too.  I have users counting
particularly on mail service not being down for too long.

Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone
tell me:

1)  Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading
2)  Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading
3)  Also any general advice from personal experience.
4)  Just how risky is this?
Uh -- why upgrade to a branch (5.x) that has already had it's last
release and is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x?  You should
really be looking at upgrading to 6.2-RELEASE just as soon as it
comes out (Real Soon Now).

As for risk -- for various reasons you will be better off doing a
clean install of 6.x and rebuilding your server from the ground up.
It's no more risky than installing any other server -- unless you
have some legacy binary-only application that you absolutely have
to run, it is virtually certain to succeed.

You biggest problem would seem to be the downtime required to do
the update -- if you can manage it, probably the least consumer
impact method is building the upgraded system on fresh disks on a
scratch box, and then finishing the upgrade by a disk-swap.  Which
also has the added benefit that you have a ready-made back out
path.

        Cheers,

        Matthew
Matthew,

I agree with your advice to build the new server with a clean install, if only to prevent any sendmail issues.

But I'm not so sure I understand your assessment that 5.x is "worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x." While I agree that 6.x is a great improvement in functionality over 5.x, I was not aware of the poor performance record of 5.x. Do you know of any links to benchmark tests, or other data, which would provide some more background on this?

That kind of data would greatly influence my opinion in this discussion. Without it I'd be pleased to recommend 5.X, regardless of it's pending "drop dead" date, wrt support. I certainly see no need to chain myself to any software release cycle, nor, it seems, does the original poster. I'm in awe of his patience, and clearly he is satisfied with the product if he remains on 4.11.

Thanks,

lane
~Still running 5.x
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
I'm on 4.11 because I'm lazy and chicken. The server is co-located so it isn't real convenient to do major upgrades. It might actually be easier and more cost effective (in terms of my time) to get a replacement box, set up 6.0 on it, and migrate.

Btw, I'm sorry for posting this question twice. I posted the first one with the wrong email address. I was surprised (and disappointed) to see that the list accepted it as I did not subscribe to the list with that address. :(


_______________________________________________
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