Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
On 3/17/10, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote: That is what I suspected for. What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production server and I have to keep it working properly? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? snip Honestly, if a system is going to go through that large of a change, here's what I'd recommend. First scenario is the quickest running, then continue with the second to keep it up-to-date Since *ALL* configuration of base and ports is done by /etc and /usr/local/etc, back up those two directories to a tarball. they're all text files so it should compress very well. Note the packages currently on your system with a simple pkg_info. This gets you a prime data set that can restore 99%+ functionality if used. Scenario 1: pkg_info /root/pkg_info.txt tar -cPpzf /root/62rc1-config.tgz /etc /usr/local/etc /root/pkg_info.txt ** keep this /root/62rc1-config.tgz archive in a safe 2 spots. 2 spots. fresh install of 8.0R on the box. extract, at minimum, the /etc entries from the tarball kept safely away from the box for each package listed in pkg_info.txt, install from packages that package (just the QUICK way to bring a box to a usable state) extract the /usr/local/etc from the tarball. **TRY** to restart your services. The reason I state 'try' is that config files may have changed from a package version a.b to x.y, so you may need to tweak your config files to match the current package. Now that you have a live box again, able to serve requests, it's time to keep it maintained. Scenario 2: install portaudit run portaudit, fix any vulnerabilities ** at this time, your system is safe from most vulnerabilities run your favorite port management software to update the rest of the ports who do not have vulnerability advisories. I've used this tactic before, works well and WILL be faster than you updating your system from 6.2 to 6.4 to 7.2 to 8.0 Let me know if you have questions. --TJ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 04:56:20PM +0300, ?? ?? typed: I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD on it. # uname -a FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? As others have said, it's a RELEASE candidate. But this kernel it's running was compiled earlier this month (March 5). Ruben ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
2010/3/18 Ruben de Groot mai...@bzerk.org As others have said, it's a RELEASE candidate. But this kernel it's running was compiled earlier this month (March 5). Ruben It is OK, course I have compiled my own kernel by commenting-out unused devices in GENERIC kernconf-file. Sources was newer updated, I just dont know how to do that =) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
18 марта 2010 г. 10:49 пользователь Tim Judd taj...@gmail.com написал: On 3/17/10, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote: That is what I suspected for. What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production server and I have to keep it working properly? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? snip Honestly, if a system is going to go through that large of a change, here's what I'd recommend. First scenario is the quickest running, then continue with the second to keep it up-to-date Since *ALL* configuration of base and ports is done by /etc and /usr/local/etc, back up those two directories to a tarball. they're all text files so it should compress very well. Note the packages currently on your system with a simple pkg_info. This gets you a prime data set that can restore 99%+ functionality if used. Scenario 1: pkg_info /root/pkg_info.txt tar -cPpzf /root/62rc1-config.tgz /etc /usr/local/etc /root/pkg_info.txt ** keep this /root/62rc1-config.tgz archive in a safe 2 spots. 2 spots. fresh install of 8.0R on the box. extract, at minimum, the /etc entries from the tarball kept safely away from the box for each package listed in pkg_info.txt, install from packages that package (just the QUICK way to bring a box to a usable state) extract the /usr/local/etc from the tarball. **TRY** to restart your services. The reason I state 'try' is that config files may have changed from a package version a.b to x.y, so you may need to tweak your config files to match the current package. Now that you have a live box again, able to serve requests, it's time to keep it maintained. Scenario 2: install portaudit run portaudit, fix any vulnerabilities ** at this time, your system is safe from most vulnerabilities run your favorite port management software to update the rest of the ports who do not have vulnerability advisories. I've used this tactic before, works well and WILL be faster than you updating your system from 6.2 to 6.4 to 7.2 to 8.0 Let me know if you have questions. --TJ Well, while my skills about FreeBSD is not good enough to let me feel OK to experiment with 6.2 to 6.4 to 7.2 to 8.0 updating, and while server is hard to physically access, I guess that just to do fresh install of RELEASE and re-configuring it in the way that Tim Judd taj...@gmail.com told, would be much more quick and safe for my services running on this server now. So the last question is which version (7.2 or 8.0) to choose. Am I right if I say there would no problems with hardware compatibility on 8.0 if there wasn't on 6.2? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Which version of FreeBSD is it?
I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD on it. # uname -a FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:56:20 +0300, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote: I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD on it. # uname -a FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? It is what it says it is: 6.2-RC1, meaning Release Candidate 1. That's a development/test version. If this is a production system it would be a very good idea to replace it with the current 8.0 RELEASE, which will give you at least proper patch maintenance. Bas ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
That is what I suspected for. What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production server and I have to keep it working properly? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? 2010/3/17 Bas v.d. Wiel b...@kompasmedia.nl On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:56:20 +0300, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote: I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD on it. # uname -a FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? It is what it says it is: 6.2-RC1, meaning Release Candidate 1. That's a development/test version. If this is a production system it would be a very good idea to replace it with the current 8.0 RELEASE, which will give you at least proper patch maintenance. Bas -- С уважением, Антон Клесс, http://kless.spb.ru/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
On 17/03/2010 14:45, Антон Клесс wrote: That is what I suspected for. What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production server and I have to keep it working properly? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? 2010/3/17 Bas v.d. Wielb...@kompasmedia.nl On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:56:20 +0300, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote: I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD on it. # uname -a FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? It is what it says it is: 6.2-RC1, meaning Release Candidate 1. That's a development/test version. If this is a production system it would be a very good idea to replace it with the current 8.0 RELEASE, which will give you at least proper patch maintenance. Bas It should be 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 - 6.4 - 7.2 - 8.0 Dont' think freebsd-update supports 6.2 (AFAIR it supports from 6.4 onwards), so you probably will have to use csup. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
Антон Клесс wrote: That is what I suspected for. What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production server and I have to keep it working properly? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? If it works, do not fix it! Actually, I'm facing exactly the same problem now: I want to upgrade 6.2-RELEASE to something (8.0?) newer. Since I don't have spare machine for tests, I'm playing now with VirtualBox (hosted on Linux). I'd like to test upgrade using cvsup/buildworld. After I will success on virtualbox I'll perform the same path on real machine. -- Mikolaj Rydzewski m...@ceti.pl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:36:38 +0100, Mikolaj Rydzewski m...@ceti.pl wrote: Антон Клесс wrote: That is what I suspected for. What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production server and I have to keep it working properly? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? If it works, do not fix it! I beg to differ: having a release candidate running in production should never happen so this situation has been sort of broken from the start. Luckily FreeBSD is a rock solid OS! Actually, I'm facing exactly the same problem now: I want to upgrade 6.2-RELEASE to something (8.0?) newer. Since I don't have spare machine for tests, I'm playing now with VirtualBox (hosted on Linux). I'd like to test upgrade using cvsup/buildworld. After I will success on virtualbox I'll perform the same path on real machine. Making an image backup of the machine's disk before you start should give you a decent rollback scenario in case things go badly. Bas ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17.03.2010 18:03, Bas v.d. Wiel wrote: On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:36:38 +0100, Mikolaj Rydzewski m...@ceti.pl wrote: Антон Клесс wrote: That is what I suspected for. What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production server and I have to keep it working properly? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? If it works, do not fix it! I beg to differ: having a release candidate running in production should never happen so this situation has been sort of broken from the start. Luckily FreeBSD is a rock solid OS! Actually, I'm facing exactly the same problem now: I want to upgrade 6.2-RELEASE to something (8.0?) newer. Since I don't have spare machine for tests, I'm playing now with VirtualBox (hosted on Linux). I'd like to test upgrade using cvsup/buildworld. After I will success on virtualbox I'll perform the same path on real machine. Making an image backup of the machine's disk before you start should give you a decent rollback scenario in case things go badly. Wouldn't a RELENG_6 (i.e. 6-Stable) from the correct date actually be 6.2-RC1? I'd say that unless the box has stability issues, or there are actual security problems (is this box available from the internet?), the old if it ain't broken ... mantra should apply... //Svein - -- - +---+--- /\ |Svein Skogen | sv...@d80.iso100.no \ / |Solberg Østli 9| PGP Key: 0xE5E76831 X|2020 Skedsmokorset | sv...@jernhuset.no / \ |Norway | PGP Key: 0xCE96CE13 | | sv...@stillbilde.net ascii | | PGP Key: 0x58CD33B6 ribbon |System Admin | svein-listm...@stillbilde.net Campaign|stillbilde.net | PGP Key: 0x22D494A4 +---+--- |msn messenger: | Mobile Phone: +47 907 03 575 |sv...@jernhuset.no | RIPE handle:SS16503-RIPE - +---+--- If you really are in a hurry, mail me at svein-mob...@stillbilde.net This mailbox goes directly to my cellphone and is checked even when I'm not in front of my computer. - Picture Gallery: https://gallery.stillbilde.net/v/svein/ - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuhDT4ACgkQODUnwSLUlKSHFwCfQRE8aZUhAPf4DhAaPnu4YCtt zZgAn2OuV7AFosp5gvCMZmy2EoAxfkb8 =73uM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote: I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD on it. # uname -a FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? I read most of the answers to this thread and after attempting the very similar upgrade (6.2-STABLE to 7.3) I can tell you that it can fail. In fact it did, and several times. In my case there were several problems I was overlooking, for example I have an IDE drive and 4 satas in a RAID5 config with gvinum. I had completely forgotten I had moved /usr to the gvinum dirve, so every time I would boot I was seeing the wrong binaries and libs, and the upgrade process was not easy. After really screwing up the whole system, I finally resorted to downloading the iso for v8 cd1 and live. With the help of FixIt the holographical shell and the live, I was able to recover the complete system and actually finishing the last steps as I'm writing this. I mean, I was able to fully recover the system without reformatting and installing from scratch. This process taught me several things: 1) upgrade has to be thought out pretty well, examine everything and plan for contingency. If you have disk arrays they may and should not mount until the end of the upgrade process IMHO. 2) The upgrade process is not hard at all, once you understand how it works. You will usually need lots of experience with Unix and hacking in general. 3) Most importantly, FreeBSD is simply _very hard_ to destroy. I really, really screwed up my system, and was able to recover it by using the handbook, google, the install CD and the Live. Now that I can truly appreciate the separation of system base from everything else, I can tell you with a lot of certainty that it's really hard not to be able to recover from a failed upgrade. Having said all this, make sure that you backup most of what you will miss, or if you can, backup everything. The upgrade process is not usually harder than what is stated here: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/updating-upgrading.html Also, if your setup is simple enough, you may be able to do it with the sysinstall utility of CD1, nevertheless, I don t advise it unless you know what your doing! Also, in my case I had a _need_ for upgrading, if you don't have a specific need, just leave it alone. The majority of newer ports will still work with 6.2. and I don't really think any security things will affect you if they haven't already! Best, Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
Антон Клесс wrote: That is what I suspected for. What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production server and I have to keep it working properly? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? Depending on what your requirements for production might be and how good know FreeBSD, this is a good enough path. The officially recommended one also includes 6.4, but if the configuration is simple enough (no fancy partitioning, no software RAID), you could simply skip from 6.2RC1 all the way to 8.0 if you know what you are doing. Regardless, you will need to upgrade all of the installed ports (you can do it at the end, no need to upgrade every time). In any case, don't do it remotely (without access to a physical console), this is a long upgrade path for it to simply work the first time. As others said, you can recover FreeBSD from practically any disaster involving such an upgrade, but it won't necessarily be easy. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
2010/3/17 Ricardo Jesus ricardo.meb.je...@gmail.com It should be 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 - 6.4 - 7.2 - 8.0 Dont' think freebsd-update supports 6.2 (AFAIR it supports from 6.4 onwards), so you probably will have to use csup. freebsd-update was available from 6.2, so there is a good chance it should be present in RC version too. If not, there should be a port version for freebsd-update. Amitabh Kant ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On 10/28/05, Micah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kirchner wrote: On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the discrepancy. Didn't see anything in quick looks through gcc(1) or make(1), either. Weird. It doesn't look like it's done in the magic file. Rather, it's something built in to file itself. Check out around line 400 of 'readelf.c'. This doesn't explain how it gets in to the binaries built, though. Here's some more to think about. I have a simple cpp program I used to test something a while back. Running file on that executable returns: trisha% file floatpoint floatpoint: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.3.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped I just now recompiled with c++ floatpoint.cpp and now: trisha% file a.out a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped And compiled with same commandline on the working machine: alexis% file a.out a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped I looked at my env, but I do not see /any/ compiler related variables set. Is there something up with the compiler itself? My processor? (Athlon64 in i386 mode) Later, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clearly, something has changed in the compiler suite. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On 10/27/05, Joshua Tinnin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew P. writes: file /usr/bin/man on my machine outputs: /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ I tried both versions of file (base system and ports) on 6.0 RC1, none showed any info about that /usr/bin/man (or any other system binary I tried). On my firewall (5.4) it works. That's odd. Am on 6.0-RC1: # uname -a FreeBSD smogmonster.local 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #0: Thu Oct 20 14:41:23 MDT 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL60 i386 % file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I know I built valgrind just a few days ago: % file /usr/local/bin/valgrind /usr/local/bin/valgrind: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), statically linked, stripped vim, too: % file /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/local/bin/vim: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I'm not sure what it means when this information isn't accessible, but I'd say it's symptomatic of another issue, and most likely it's not good. If you built from source, did you follow the procedure described in the handbook? http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html Not sure, but are you installing kernel after building world, and then installing world in single user? I've seen strange things happen if you don't do this procedure the right way. Of course, I'm just guessing, as I'm not at all sure what could be causing this problem or what your exact circumstances are. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat64% uname -a FreeBSD sat64.net17 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #2: Fri Oct 14 22:57:08 MSD 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SATCUR32 i386 sat64% file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dyn amically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynam ically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamica lly linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/local/bin/waveplay /usr/local/bin/waveplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (Free BSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% /usr/local/bin/file /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Maybe you're right. I never go to single-user when upgrading. But then, I'm the only user and there are not many processes. I'm not gonna worry anyway, hope it's not a rootkit :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
Andrew P. wrote: On 10/27/05, Joshua Tinnin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew P. writes: file /usr/bin/man on my machine outputs: /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ I tried both versions of file (base system and ports) on 6.0 RC1, none showed any info about that /usr/bin/man (or any other system binary I tried). On my firewall (5.4) it works. That's odd. Am on 6.0-RC1: # uname -a FreeBSD smogmonster.local 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #0: Thu Oct 20 14:41:23 MDT 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL60 i386 % file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I know I built valgrind just a few days ago: % file /usr/local/bin/valgrind /usr/local/bin/valgrind: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), statically linked, stripped vim, too: % file /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/local/bin/vim: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I'm not sure what it means when this information isn't accessible, but I'd say it's symptomatic of another issue, and most likely it's not good. If you built from source, did you follow the procedure described in the handbook? http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html Not sure, but are you installing kernel after building world, and then installing world in single user? I've seen strange things happen if you don't do this procedure the right way. Of course, I'm just guessing, as I'm not at all sure what could be causing this problem or what your exact circumstances are. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat64% uname -a FreeBSD sat64.net17 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #2: Fri Oct 14 22:57:08 MSD 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SATCUR32 i386 sat64% file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dyn amically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynam ically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamica lly linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/local/bin/waveplay /usr/local/bin/waveplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (Free BSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% /usr/local/bin/file /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Maybe you're right. I never go to single-user when upgrading. But then, I'm the only user and there are not many processes. I'm not gonna worry anyway, hope it's not a rootkit :-) I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and not on others. Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
Consider diff'ing the /usr/share/misc/magic file from a system that
works and a system that doesn't work. I'd expect the difference to
be evident there.
It works find on all my machines, though.
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*--[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]--*
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
Will Maier wrote: On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote: I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and not on others. Consider diff'ing the /usr/share/misc/magic file from a system that works and a system that doesn't work. I'd expect the difference to be evident there. It works find on all my machines, though. I have two 5.4 systems, one's a 5.4-Release installed from Disk, the other's a 5.4-release-p7 upgraded from 5.3 via the procedures in the handbook. File on the former reports FreeBSD version, file on the latter does not. There appears to be only minor differences in magic files between the two machines. Copying the magic file from the working machine to the non-working machine and compiling it via file -c did not change anything. Copying the executable from the working machine to the non-working machine did nothing either. Note: alexis-5.4, trisha-5.4p7 alexis% file `which ethereal` /usr/X11R6/bin/ethereal: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped trisha% file `which ethereal` /usr/X11R6/bin/ethereal: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Thanks, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
Will Maier wrote: On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote: I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and not on others. Consider diff'ing the /usr/share/misc/magic file from a system that works and a system that doesn't work. I'd expect the difference to be evident there. It works find on all my machines, though. Didn't think to check this until /after/ I started to make lunch. :) I copied ethereal from the working machine to the non-working machine. Using file on the copied ethereal gives me: trisha% file ethereal ethereal: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Conversly coping ethereal from the broken machine to the working machine I get: alexis% file ethereal ethereal: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped In other words, it's not file that broken, but /every/ executable on the broken machine is broken. Now why would that be? A compiler flag or something? Later, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:36:18AM -0700, Micah wrote:
In other words, it's not file that broken, but /every/ executable
on the broken machine is broken. Now why would that be? A
compiler flag or something?
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the
discrepancy. Didn't see anything in quick looks through gcc(1) or
make(1), either.
Weird.
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*--[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]--*
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the discrepancy. Didn't see anything in quick looks through gcc(1) or make(1), either. Weird. It doesn't look like it's done in the magic file. Rather, it's something built in to file itself. Check out around line 400 of 'readelf.c'. This doesn't explain how it gets in to the binaries built, though. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
David Kirchner wrote: On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the discrepancy. Didn't see anything in quick looks through gcc(1) or make(1), either. Weird. It doesn't look like it's done in the magic file. Rather, it's something built in to file itself. Check out around line 400 of 'readelf.c'. This doesn't explain how it gets in to the binaries built, though. Here's some more to think about. I have a simple cpp program I used to test something a while back. Running file on that executable returns: trisha% file floatpoint floatpoint: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.3.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped I just now recompiled with c++ floatpoint.cpp and now: trisha% file a.out a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped And compiled with same commandline on the working machine: alexis% file a.out a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped I looked at my env, but I do not see /any/ compiler related variables set. Is there something up with the compiler itself? My processor? (Athlon64 in i386 mode) Later, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote: How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions without COMPAT* in the kernel? file (1) I don't mean to push it, but how file would ever help me to know subj? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:01, Andrew P. wrote: On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote: How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions without COMPAT* in the kernel? file (1) I don't mean to push it, but how file would ever help me to know subj? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here is an example: file /usr/bin/man on my machine outputs: /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On 10/26/05, Michael C. Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:01, Andrew P. wrote: On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote: How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions without COMPAT* in the kernel? file (1) I don't mean to push it, but how file would ever help me to know subj? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here is an example: file /usr/bin/man on my machine outputs: /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped -Mike Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Sorry and thanks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
Andrew P. writes: file /usr/bin/man on my machine outputs: /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew P. writes: file /usr/bin/man on my machine outputs: /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I tried both versions of file (base system and ports) on 6.0 RC1, none showed any info about that /usr/bin/man (or any other system binary I tried). On my firewall (5.4) it works. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew P. writes: file /usr/bin/man on my machine outputs: /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ I tried both versions of file (base system and ports) on 6.0 RC1, none showed any info about that /usr/bin/man (or any other system binary I tried). On my firewall (5.4) it works. That's odd. Am on 6.0-RC1: # uname -a FreeBSD smogmonster.local 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #0: Thu Oct 20 14:41:23 MDT 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL60 i386 % file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I know I built valgrind just a few days ago: % file /usr/local/bin/valgrind /usr/local/bin/valgrind: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), statically linked, stripped vim, too: % file /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/local/bin/vim: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I'm not sure what it means when this information isn't accessible, but I'd say it's symptomatic of another issue, and most likely it's not good. If you built from source, did you follow the procedure described in the handbook? http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html Not sure, but are you installing kernel after building world, and then installing world in single user? I've seen strange things happen if you don't do this procedure the right way. Of course, I'm just guessing, as I'm not at all sure what could be causing this problem or what your exact circumstances are. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions without COMPAT* in the kernel? One can always carefully examine the output of ldd, readelf and other such tools, but that requires much knowledge and a small lab with all kinds of BSD's set up. Is there a better way? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
without COMPAT* in the kernel?
file (1)
One can always carefully examine the output of ldd, readelf and
other such tools, but that requires much knowledge and a small lab
with all kinds of BSD's set up. Is there a better way?
| ~ % file /usr/local/bin/screen
| /usr/local/bin/screen: setuid ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel
| 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked
| (uses shared libs), stripped
| ~ % uname -a
| FreeBSD vger.caenn.wisc.edu 5.4-RELEASE-p8 FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p8
| #1: Tue Oct 11 20:19:50 CDT 2005
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VGER20050925 i386
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*--[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]--*
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which Version of FreeBSD?
I really believe the choose would depend on your requirements and your experience. If you are new to open source Unix-like environment then you should not use either in version in a production environment unless you can afford the cost associated with learning a new system. Do not under estimate that cost. In a production environment I would recommend using a system you are familiar with administering. I hope I do not get too many people mad at me for say this. If you are seating up a file sharing server that works in a windows environment you may want to use 5.3. This version adds support for ACL, NSS (nss_ldap) , and a bunch of other stuff that I have not be able to explore yet. On Wednesday 29 September 2004 19:07, Michael G. Goodell wrote: Which release of FreeBSD is best for a production environment? I am aware of the different branches of development: CURRENT, STABLE, RELEASE and I *think* I understand the meaning of each from what I have read. Perhaps not since I am writing this question! But, what I would like to know is when I am setting up a production system, or desktop for that matter, which is considered *THE* most stable of the choices in versions. Is it in the 4.x branch, 5x etc... Where can I get clarification on this topic - any direction would be welcome. Thanks, Michael ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-newbies To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version of FreeBSD to support a 3ware Escalade 7006 and 8006 controllers?
I'm looking at getting a 3ware Escalade 7006 or 8006 RAID controller for one of my servers. The machine presently runs RELENG_4_8. The twe man page for that version doesn't list the 7000 or 8000 series controllers. However, 3ware lists 4.8 as the supported version of FreeBSD for both. Which is correct? More to the point: What would be the recommended version of FreeBSD I should use for these controllers? Does it really matter? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version of freebsd..
Currently were going to reinstall all servers we have from redhat 9 to freebsd because redhat 9 is EOL... But after reading a few mails here that 4.9 is most likely not supported for a long time.. what version should we take then? We will be using it for multiple servers (mail, database, app, web etc..) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of freebsd..
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:54:56AM +0200, lists wrote: Currently were going to reinstall all servers we have from redhat 9 to freebsd because redhat 9 is EOL... But after reading a few mails here that 4.9 is most likely not supported for a long time.. what version should we take then? Looks like 4.10 is in beta so if you're looking for stability it might be worth hanging on until it hits -RELEASE (or, install 4.9 and then cvsup). Bear in mind 5 is still a technology release and should not be used for production servers. -lewiz. -- I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. --Bob Dylan, 1964. -| msn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | url:www.lewiz.org |- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which version of freebsd..
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:54:56AM +0200, lists wrote: Currently were going to reinstall all servers we have from redhat 9 to freebsd because redhat 9 is EOL... But after reading a few mails here that 4.9 is most likely not supported for a long time.. what version should we take then? 4.9-RELEASE will be supported[1] for at least a year from it's release, as is normal with all the the 4.x series. However, support for 4.8-RELEASE has been specifically extended until 31 March 2005, and it's listed EOL is actually later than the one for 4.9 at the moment. http://www.freebsd.org/security/ The upcoming 4.10-RELEASE will presumably be supported for the usual 12 months from release, which takes it to an EOL at around the same time as currently stated for 4.8-RELEASE and 4-STABLE. We will be using it for multiple servers (mail, database, app, web etc..) You have two choices: either the conservative one of installing one of the 4.x releases, or the risky one of installing a 5.x release. If your profit margin or job security depends on the performance of those servers, go with 4.x. You'll have getting on for another year of support, at which time you will have a choice of well-tested 5.x releases to jump to. Or you can just go to 5.x immediately -- avoiding the effort of a 4.x to 5.x transition. However be aware that 5.x releases are still Early Adopter, which among other things means that they don't get a very long support period[2]. In which case, expect to have to do an upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3 in the fairly near future. That Early Adopter status will change with the creation of the 5-STABLE branch and 5.3-RELEASE, which should happen later this summer. After that point the 5.x releases will be recognised as full-blown FreeBSD releases and receive the normal length of support. Cheers, Matthew [1] Support in this case means that security bugs in the base system will be fixed. It doesn't mean that such things as ports are guarranteed to work correctly. The whole ports mechanism is only thoroughly tested by the routine package building process, which takes place on the latest 4.x and 5.x release branches. Although it is generally possible to made the ports system work on older systems, this cannot be absolutely guarranteed. [2] There was some consternation after the release of FreeBSD-SA-04:04.tcp.asc when many people first realised that 5.1-RELEASE was no longer supported. -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
