On Monday 11 December 2006 22:13, Chad Gross wrote:
> On 12/11/06, Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > Chad Gross wrote:
> > > First I would address the first question. Only you can really answer
> > > whether
> > > or not there is a benefit. Is there a specific need (e.g.
> > software/hardware
> > > support) for you to upgrade? If not then I would recommend against the
> > > upgrade. If yes, I why not move to 6.x? I have been running FBSD since
> > > 4.0and have run every revision since and would not suggest using
> > > 5.x. Either stick with 4.x or move to 6.x based on your requirements.
> > >
> > > To answer your second question, the best place to look for help is the
> > > handbook (
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.htm
> > >l
> > ).
> > > Also make sure to read /usr/src/UPDATING as this may contain special
> > > instructions. It is a general rule of thumb to do a clean install
> > between
> > > major revisions though. I have personally done them with success, but
> > would
> > > not recommend doing it on a production server if it is your first time
> > > doing
> > > one (as it sounds to be). Stick to upgrading between minor revisions
> > until
> > > you are familiar with the build/make process. Also these mailing lists
> > > are a
> > > great resource for help as is http://www.bsdforums.org/ (and a few
> > others,
> > > use Google).
> > >
> > > Finally, as mentioned above, from personal experience it is best to
> > stick
> > > with a clean install between major revisions.
> > >
> > > Good luck again,
> > >
> > > Chad
> > >
> > >> Bad way to look at things, given that 4.x isn't supported
> > >>anymore by the FreeBSD group; so anything either userland or core
> > >> system related that needs to be upgraded due to a security or
> > >> performance issue would require an upgrade anyhow..
> > >>
> > >> You should run at least 5.x, but it's highly recommended that
> > >>
> > >>you go to 6.x, due to performance improvements and the fact that you
> > >>won't have to source upgrade your system again for a lot longer period
> > >>of time (than if you moved to 5.x).
> > >> The only issue is that you don't have direct access to the
> > machine.
> > >>- -Garrett
> I apologize, I didn't realize that 4.x was no longer supported (I thought
> RELENG_4 was still getting commits). In that case, I would make the move to
> 6.x being that 5.x wasn't exactly the best release performance-wise and it
> will be moving out of support sooner too.
What was the problem with performance in 5.x?
I'm not challenging your assertion, not at all. But this is the second time
in this thread that I've read comments about poor performance in 5.x, and ...
well ... I've not experienced that - quite the contrary.
I'm just curious - did I maybe miss some discussion about how poor 5.x was?
Thanks for your time
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"