On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:26:02PM -0500, listvj wrote: > 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? > >> > >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.
I just remember seeing a number of posts about reduced performance due to major changes and lots of debug stuff left in for the time being. > > > >Thanks, > > > >lane > >~Still running 5.x > >_______________________________________________ > >email@example.com 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. Well, if you can really do that, it is a nice way of going -- especially jumping to 6.xx because you really want to do a clean install of 6.xx because it has some file system improvements what you won't get by just doing an upgrade without rebuilding the file systems (it would just keep using the old file systems if you don't do a clean install - it is not a devastating loss, but you might as well get the full treatment now). So, install 6.2 on a new machine and then move over your working files. I always recommend arranging file systems to make it easy to keep your own stuff separate from system stuff and ports, but some things don't seem to encourage that behavior, unfortunately. Go all the way to 6.2 for the new system. 6.xx is good. I haven't had any trouble with it. My only problem is that no-one has upgraded an AFS client to run on it yet - not ARLA nor OpenAFS so I had to put together a separate machine running 5.5 to have an AFS client. The 6.2 RELEASE is supposed to be out any minute now. The date has been slipping. I haven't tried to follow what is being waited on. > > 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. :( Don't worry about it. The FreeBSD questions allows all posts except it does have some spam filtering on it. The rationale is that the questions must get through regardless of whether someone is subscribed; that the few spam misses are less of a problem than potentially blocking legitimate questions. ////jerry > _______________________________________________ > firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"