Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:04:28PM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? Personnally, when upgrading from 4.x to 5.x, we ran into the following 3 issues that are still not fixed in 5.4: kern/80617: Hangup writing large blocks to NFS mounted FS(Patches available) Not exremely important: just don't do that. kern/79208: i387 libm's floorf(), ceilf() and truncf() (Fixed in RELENG_5) PITA when running threaded calculations. kern/78824 socketpair()/close() race condition (Fixed in CURRENT) Patch will be MFC'd to RELENG_5 soon. Anyway: you won't catch me running an unpatched 5.4 system... I'd say stick with RELENG_5 for the time being. Since I can't seem to keep any recent RELENG_5 kernel up and running atm. I'd change my viewpoint to run 5.4 and apply all necessary stability patches yourself. I'll prepare a patchset... Marc pgpwffJfub9Iw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:28:03AM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:04:28PM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? Personnally, when upgrading from 4.x to 5.x, we ran into the following 3 issues that are still not fixed in 5.4: kern/80617: Hangup writing large blocks to NFS mounted FS(Patches available) Not exremely important: just don't do that. kern/79208: i387 libm's floorf(), ceilf() and truncf() (Fixed in RELENG_5) PITA when running threaded calculations. kern/78824 socketpair()/close() race condition (Fixed in CURRENT) Patch will be MFC'd to RELENG_5 soon. Anyway: you won't catch me running an unpatched 5.4 system... I'd say stick with RELENG_5 for the time being. Since I can't seem to keep any recent RELENG_5 kernel up and running atm. I'd change my viewpoint to run 5.4 and apply all necessary stability patches yourself. I'll prepare a patchset... ARGH, nevermind, 5.4-release-p4 crashes on: kern/83375 Fatal trap 12 cloning a pty (Broken in 5.4-7.x) I'll have to revert to 4.10 or 4.11 for our servers, until I can manage to keep a single test machine up and rnuning... :-( Marc pgpVvfv16tHjJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:46:18AM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: Since I can't seem to keep any recent RELENG_5 kernel up and running atm. I'd change my viewpoint to run 5.4 and apply all necessary stability patches yourself. I'll prepare a patchset... ARGH, nevermind, 5.4-release-p4 crashes on: kern/83375 Fatal trap 12 cloning a pty (Broken in 5.4-7.x) I put a list of my issues with FreeBSD 5.4 together: http://www.ipv4.stack.nl/~marcolz/FreeBSD/showstoppers.html Marc pgpeCtJwqqAuQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
KK == Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: KK And what was wrong with casting your eye one line down, clicking on KK Message-ID and entering it in the search box at KK http://www.freebsd.org/search/search-mid.html Ah, there it is. Thank you! KK Is it really rendered in an invisible font for several people not to KK have seen it? Close; it is rendered only it what seems to be a table of contentes for the current page, but actually is a combination of a local toc and a liks collection. Not the most user-friendly device in a web page ... -- Rasmus Kaj --+-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --+-- http://www.stacken.kth.se/~kaj/ Hiroshime 45, Tjernobyl 86, Windows 95 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
On 06/13/05 14:26, Rasmus Kaj wrote: KK == Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: KK And what was wrong with casting your eye one line down, clicking on KK Message-ID and entering it in the search box at KK http://www.freebsd.org/search/search-mid.html Ah, there it is. Thank you! KK Is it really rendered in an invisible font for several people not to KK have seen it? Close; it is rendered only it what seems to be a table of contentes for the current page, but actually is a combination of a local toc and a liks collection. Not the most user-friendly device in a web page ... Even if it was only a table of contents for that page, why not read it? Navigation is provided to save you time. Regardless of whether it is a table of contents for the page, a collection of links, or a combination of the two, it is still relevant. -- Jonathan Noack | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | OpenPGP: 0x991D8195 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:44:07PM -0500, Vulpes Velox wrote: Personnally, when upgrading from 4.x to 5.x, we ran into the following 3 issues that are still not fixed in 5.4: kern/80617: Hangup writing large blocks to NFS mounted FS(Patches available) Not exremely important: just don't do that. kern/79208: i387 libm's floorf(), ceilf() and truncf() (Fixed in RELENG_5) PITA when running threaded calculations. kern/78824 socketpair()/close() race condition (Fixed in CURRENT) Patch will be MFC'd to RELENG_5 soon. Anyway: you won't catch me running an unpatched 5.4 system... I'd say stick with RELENG_5 for the time being. Given the choice, I can't see any reason not to run a system that is not using the current stable. Which is exactly what I recommended (current stable == RELENG_5) :-) Marc pgp8aJetGF8zB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:22:41PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: You can't make the archive search, but Google Groups can (and does) very well. I search the mail list archives far more frequently with Google (or Google Groups) than with the archive search tool. Sure you can..there's a message ID search right there on the search page! I already posted a link to this. Kris wrote http://www.freebsd.org/search/search.html I tried http://www.freebsd.org/search/ clicked to http://www.freebsd.org/search/#mailinglists clicked to amd64 moused in the original message ID I had quoted [EMAIL PROTECTED] got the posting by David O'Brien http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=218610+56+/usr/local/www/db/text/2005/freebsd-amd64/20050605.freebsd-amd64 It wasn't a search by key field of Message-ID, just a search for arbitrary text, content being the MessageID. But it worked. ( I had vaguely assumed the search box on front of http://www.freebsd.org search after clicking mailing lists on front page, leading to http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html#ERESOURCES-MAIL probably would have been unified searches,, but not so, I guess one search comes standard with ports/mail/mailman, the other is special to freebsd.org site. - Julian StaceyNet Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Mail in Ascii (Html=Spam). Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:13:57PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:22:41PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: You can't make the archive search, but Google Groups can (and does) very well. I search the mail list archives far more frequently with Google (or Google Groups) than with the archive search tool. Sure you can..there's a message ID search right there on the search page! I already posted a link to this. Kris wrotehttp://www.freebsd.org/search/search.html I tried http://www.freebsd.org/search/ clicked tohttp://www.freebsd.org/search/#mailinglists clicked toamd64 moused in the original message ID I had quoted [EMAIL PROTECTED] got the posting by David O'Brien http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=218610+56+/usr/local/www/db/text/2005/freebsd-amd64/20050605.freebsd-amd64 It wasn't a search by key field of Message-ID, just a search for arbitrary text, content being the MessageID. But it worked. And what was wrong with casting your eye one line down, clicking on Message-ID and entering it in the search box at http://www.freebsd.org/search/search-mid.html Is it really rendered in an invisible font for several people not to have seen it? Kris pgpXcWwdYD8qC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Many seasoned unix people have spoken to me about how much more stable FreeBSD is, although at the risk of starting a flame war I'm not convinced that this is still the case, at least not for the 5 series vs Trustix. (vs most linux distributions - sure :D ) I have 9 webservers, two nfs-servers, one firewall and one samba-server all running RELENG_5_4, some even on the Dell PE 2850 without any problems. The webservers are reasonably loaded in the evening, the nfs-servers pushes some GB during the day, rsync etc. without any problems. Ports are cool. Trustix doesn't provide an exim package, so I'm forever updating that myself. One very *nice* app that FreeBSD has is /usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade and is worth installing, makes updating much more convenient rather than doing the upgrade manually. It even creates a package for you if you use the -p parameter (lowercase p), and if you make the /usr/ports/packages directory it will place the created packages with the same layout as the ports-collection itself. Nfs-mount the ports-directory from another host and upgrading apps suddenly becomes a matter of minutes (using the -P parameter (uppercase p)). Claus ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
Julian H. Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GCC 3.4.2 on 5.4-RELEASE has a bug for amd64, I started avoiding that by putting CFLAGS= -O0 in /etc/make.conf More info from: Message from David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] of Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:26:15 PDT. [EMAIL PROTECTED] This worries me a lot, but I have not been able to locate the quoted email! (how do you make the archives search on message ID?) Does anyone have any,more information on this - I'd hate to start cmmitting production code to a buggy compiler! -pcf. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Vulpes Velox wrote: I just had to try the USB part... other than having to unmount it and remount it, I had no problems. What did you do? I just tried it again, and get: # umount /dev/da0s1 umount: unmount of /ipod failed: Resource temporarily unavailable And that stays that way, until reboot, rendering the da0s1 device unavailable. umount -f produces an instant reset. No panic, nothing, just *zapp* and the machine resets itself. halt gives up on synching buffers after a while (or produces a panic, like I got in earlier attempts), rendering the filesystems unclean on the next boot. That's on 5.4-STABLE of perhaps 1-2 weeks ago. mkb. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:32:53AM +0100, Pete French wrote: Julian H. Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GCC 3.4.2 on 5.4-RELEASE has a bug for amd64, I started avoiding that by putting CFLAGS= -O0 in /etc/make.conf More info from: Message from David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] of Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:26:15 PDT. [EMAIL PROTECTED] This worries me a lot, but I have not been able to locate the quoted email! (how do you make the archives search on message ID?) http://www.freebsd.org/search/search.html Does anyone have any,more information on this - I'd hate to start cmmitting production code to a buggy compiler! Don't panic :) Kris pgpBtEBGsxev3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:01:54 +0200 From: Julian H. Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pete French wrote: Julian H. Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GCC 3.4.2 on 5.4-RELEASE has a bug for amd64, I started avoiding that by putting CFLAGS= -O0 in /etc/make.conf More info from: Message from David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] of Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:26:15 PDT. [EMAIL PROTECTED] This worries me a lot, but I have not been able to locate the quoted email! I searched my local personal archive of FreeBSD amd64 postings with find grep found the item, then with that item, sorted mail archive presentation on FreeBSD site, to now quote you http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/2005-June/005107.html (how do you make the archives search on message ID?) I dont know if that's possible. I tried the message id into the search box on front page of freebsd site, but it did not find what I wanted. You can't make the archive search, but Google Groups can (and does) very well. I search the mail list archives far more frequently with Google (or Google Groups) than with the archive search tool. Note that not all FreeBSD mailing lists are present in Google Groups, but most message-ids can be found in either. Google gets around. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
On Thursday 09 June 2005 06:32 am, Pete French wrote: Julian H. Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GCC 3.4.2 on 5.4-RELEASE has a bug for amd64, I started avoiding that by putting CFLAGS= -O0 in /etc/make.conf More info from: Message from David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] of Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:26:15 PDT. [EMAIL PROTECTED] This worries me a lot, but I have not been able to locate the quoted email! (how do you make the archives search on message ID?) http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050602082615.GA36096 http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506011833.12686.jkim For more info about this issue: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?IDTR9T00.LMF http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050324194817.N97600 http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050324182524.J97436 Does anyone have any,more information on this - I'd hate to start cmmitting production code to a buggy compiler! Don't panic; it is not critical at all. Other critical issues are fixed in GCC 3.4.4, which is in -CURRENT. On -STABLE, you can use ports/lang/gcc34 from ports. Jung-uk Kim -pcf. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?GCC broken for amd64 ? (was Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?)
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:22:41PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: You can't make the archive search, but Google Groups can (and does) very well. I search the mail list archives far more frequently with Google (or Google Groups) than with the archive search tool. Sure you can..there's a message ID search right there on the search page! I already posted a link to this. Kris pgpCDhkm479XH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:13:16AM +1000, David Hogan wrote: [...] .. it's just my general impression that something's up with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4? I'd say go for 5.4. 5.4 runs rock stable here on amd64. Have 5.4 running even very stable on vmware as well under XP like you. Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE Need a magic printfilter today ? - http://www.apsfilter.org/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, 2005-Jun-08 10:13:16 +1000, David Hogan wrote: Recently though, I've been playing around with FreeBSD 5.4 on a vmware box, and I'm beginning to think it may be the way forward in the long run. Having observed freebsd-stable@freebsd.org for the last couple of weeks, I've noticed a worrying (to me) amount of traffic regarding kernel panics, general instability etc, and I'm now posting this in the hope that I might obtain perspective on this from some experienced FreeBSD users. IMHO, just reading this mailing list will give you an overly negative view of FreeBSD's stability. My experiences are that FreeBSD 5.4 using a GENERIC kernel (or something close to it) is quite stable. I'm only aware of one issue - relating to an interaction between mysnc(2) and UFS2 snapshots - and that hasn't affected me so far.. Most of the problems I've seen on this list relate to one or more of: - Experimenting with the ULE scheduler (which is not used by default) - Experimenting with PREEMPTION (which is off by default) - Having machines with 4GB or more of RAM - Running 5-STABLE (the development version) rather than 5.4 - Having filesystems with lots (1e6) of inodes - Unusual hardware (eg laptops) My suggestion is that you install your application suite on FreeBSD 5.4 (either native or within VMware) and experiment for a while. Your own applications are by far the best test. If you're happy with FreeBSD, switch over. If you run into problems, let us know. At this stage, I would recommend 5.4 over 4.11. -- Peter Jeremy ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
David Hogan wrote: In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? I If that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be careless to migrate now. If it works, why change it? My experience with the 5.x tree so far is that it's ok for a SOHO or private environment but I wouldn't trust it if my money (or job) depended on it. Maybe in a year, or two but not now. mkb. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Matthias Buelow wrote: If that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be careless to migrate now. If it works, why change it? My experience with the 5.x tree so far is that it's ok for a SOHO or private environment but I wouldn't trust it if my money (or job) depended on it. Maybe in a year, or two but not now. I use 5-STABLE as our Samba/Courier-IMAP/exim/bugzilla/CVS server in production environment. One of problems I have is LanSafe III software for Linux, which worked fine on FreeBSD 4.X, but does not work as expected on FreeBSD 5.X. But it also does not work on Mandrake 10.1. Also we have FreeBSD 5-STABLE internal router, and FreeBSD 5-STABLE gateway/IPSec + small hosting for some of our sites (in jail (8)). ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Peter Jeremy wrote: ... IMHO, just reading this mailing list will give you an overly negative view of FreeBSD's stability. My experiences are that FreeBSD 5.4 using a GENERIC kernel (or something close to it) is quite stable. Second that. Based on the observable chatter around 5.x problem areas since its inception, I opted to keep plugging away with 4.x for a long time after it was marked legacy. However, I also noted that over time, most reported problems ended up being solved (always a plus when evaluating a system's worthiness ;). I recently began to seriously hammer on several test boxes with RELENG_5 (starting just before 5.4 PRE), and since I started doing that I haven't seen a single problem with a variety of mainstream Wintel hardware components. We plan to migrate all our 4.x production servers over the course of the summer, and are considering deploying a number of new ones. I think that while there have been some outspoken critics of the 5.x branch, and there continue to be some minor rough spots, it is generally a very good system. -- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) Library Interchange Network (LINK) gregb at scls.lib.wi.us, (608) 266-6348 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:13 PM, David Hogan wrote: using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general impression that something's up with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4? 5.4 without question. I'm planning a migration of my 2 rack-fulls of 4.11 boxes to 5.4 (or 5.5 depending on how long the planning takes :-) Vivek Khera, Ph.D. +1-301-869-4449 x806 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On June 8, 2005 03:26 am, Matthias Buelow wrote: David Hogan wrote: In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? I If that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be careless to migrate now. If it works, why change it? My experience with the 5.x tree so far is that it's ok for a SOHO or private environment but I wouldn't trust it if my money (or job) depended on it. Maybe in a year, or two but not now. We depend on it everyday without problems. Our mail servers, spam / virus filters, firewalls, web servers, proxy servers, and Samba servers all run FreeBSD 5.3 and 5.4. We have servers in each of the secondary schools, the admin buildings, and the elementary schools. Some of these are high-end dual-Opteron systems with 4 GB of RAM. Others are dual-AthlonMP systems with 4 GB RAM. The lowest-end are P2 333MHz systems (firewalls). None of the servers are name-brand, top-tier servers, they're all generic 1U, 2U, and tower systems built by local suppliers to our specifications. The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's not an issue any more). I trust my job to FreeBSD (even runs on my laptop), and it handles just about everything for the school district, right down to storing accounting and personnel files. Works beautifully, for our needs. -- Freddie Cash [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Freddie Cash wrote: The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's not an issue any more). I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. mkb. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
- Original Message - From: Matthias Buelow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freddie Cash wrote: The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's not an issue any more). I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. We have nearly 80 machines running on 5.2.1 never had an issue that wasnt hardware related. Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. mkb. I also run FreeBSD 5.4 in production with no problems. I've only rarely had problems after cvsup since the 2.2.7 days, and were always caught in test. It seems that how/what programs you run on FreeBSD is a main factor in if you will have problems. This explains how one admin can have no problems, and others have many. Trust 5.4, it's stabler for me. Jeff Love Burgh Gaming ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:20:49PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote: Freddie Cash wrote: The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's not an issue any more). I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Right, it was a developer preview release that was not intended for production use. Kris pgpGgogJGIk28.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
At 12:20 PM 08/06/2005, Matthias Buelow wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? ---Mike ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Kris Kennaway wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Right, it was a developer preview release that was not intended for production use. I know, I have not claimed otherwise. mkb. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Mike Tancsa wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? I won't go into the details here; it has crashed and frozen on me on several occasions, it behaves badly when you do things it does not expect, like pulling a mounted USB stick, it doesn't have working software RAID (Ok, vinum never worked properly but that's a different story), and it's performance is sub-par. I consider it production ready when the new architecture has fully been implemented, GIANT is gone, all those race conditions and deadlocks that seemingly still persist have been fixed, and is has weathered a release or two after that without apparent problems. mkb. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:42:45PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? Personnally, when upgrading from 4.x to 5.x, we ran into the following 3 issues that are still not fixed in 5.4: kern/80617: Hangup writing large blocks to NFS mounted FS(Patches available) Not exremely important: just don't do that. kern/79208: i387 libm's floorf(), ceilf() and truncf() (Fixed in RELENG_5) PITA when running threaded calculations. kern/78824 socketpair()/close() race condition (Fixed in CURRENT) Patch will be MFC'd to RELENG_5 soon. Anyway: you won't catch me running an unpatched 5.4 system... I'd say stick with RELENG_5 for the time being. Zlo pgpJ2PhYr626K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Jun 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Matthias Buelow wrote: Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? I won't go into the details here; it has crashed and frozen on me on several occasions, it behaves badly when you do things it does not expect, like pulling a mounted USB stick, Yanking a mounted device out from under Unix has always been a no- no. It would be nice if FreeBSD handled this better, but this problem falls into the operator error: don't do that category. it doesn't have working software RAID (Ok, vinum never worked properly but that's a different story), This is a valid point-- the migration to 5.x and gvinum has not been pretty, and there are some gotchas lurking when people try to deal with multi-terabyte RAID arrays, MBR vs GPT, and so forth. However, it's common to find half-decent hardware RAID functionality on many x86 and AMD64 motherboards, and PCI-based RAID cards are not very expensive. I'd rather use RAID in hardware than software, myself, but if you think the current status of software RAID in 5.x isn't production ready, that strikes me as an understandable position to hold. and it's performance is sub-par. 5.3 and earlier especially have struck me as being noticably slower than 4.10 or so, but there have been significant improvements since then, and 5.4 and 4.1x seem to be comparable. To do better than a broad generalization, however, you really need to pick some tasks and do real benchmarking to compare what is really going on. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:01:55PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote: Mike Tancsa wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? I won't go into the details here; it has crashed and frozen on me on several occasions, it behaves badly when you do things it does not expect, like pulling a mounted USB stick, it doesn't have working software RAID (Ok, vinum never worked properly but that's a different story), and it's performance is sub-par. I consider it production ready when the new architecture has fully been implemented, GIANT is gone, all those race conditions and deadlocks that seemingly still persist have been fixed, and is has weathered a release or two after that without apparent problems. Haven't had a single problem putting 5.x into production as database servers, mail servers, other backend things, etc. here... The performance is very good for most things. Removing a device while it's opened is something that has never worked. Giant existing is not really something that doesn't make it productonable. Also, vinum is now gvinum, and there's also graid3 and gmirror, so I don't know why you say there isn't working software RAID. The major occasions where things really didn't work right were with IPFW, and I found and fixed those (well, one of them is not yet committed). I had never tried the IPFW-compatible bridge(4) before, but it is significantly broken (crashes bridging two fxp(4)). So caveat emptor using it as a firewall for the time being... The other problem I have had is that doing CD burning can sometimes crash the system, but I haven't tried using a real SCSI drive instead. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,\ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
pgsql# uptime 9:35PM up 235 days, 11:12, 1 user, load averages: 1.40, 1.17, 1.11 pgsql# uname -v FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE #0: Wed Jul 28 18:02:39 CEST 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/PGSQL I gues uptime would be even greater if I didn't have power failure and UPS was empty. So far with 5.4 I have experienced problems on Dell Power Edge 1650SC (but that problem seems to be gone with HTT disabled and I did cvsup few times after installing RELEASE). I'm running many heavy loaded servers on 5.4 and I think that it is stable. Sometimes I'm thinking about running 6.0-CURRENT on production servers :)) Regards, gg. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
something's up with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4? My experience: go 5.3 or 4.11, but avoid 5.4. Here's why: I've downgraded my main amd64 tower 386 laptop from 5.4 to 5.3. I've also abandoned amd64 for i386. (PS ref. `seasoned' I've been with FreeBSD since before it had release numbers :-) I havent had time to analyse or dmesg all my problems, but I got tired of 5.4 amd64 pain needed lost functionality back. Both those boxes are dual boot partitons, but both just had main 5.4-rel. spare 5.4-rel for rescue. Now I've wound back to 5.3 regained my lost functionality, I'll be taking one but Not both partitions on one or each host, forward to (possibly) 5.4-rel, or more likely stable or current amd64 native (for the one box) again, analysing problems fixing / or bug reporting with dmesg etc. But the one thing I will Not be doing is raising all partitions to 5.4. 5.4-rel is a pain here, 5.3-rel. is better for me. A few problems I've had include: rdist works on 5.3 source host, but not from 5.4+amd64 (yes, I'm sure someone's out there will work, but Mine doesn't (user su) does with 5.3, which iis all that maters to me :-) also rdist depends on which of rdist rdist6 44bsd-rdist, which protocol, what version other end etc, which is why I'd not mentioned till now, yes I know rsync works too, but I'm comfortable with rdist[6]) 5.3, not 5.4. usbd (i386+5.4) fails to recognise my sim card on a USB Cruzer, but 5.3 works OK various ports dont work for amd64 (or say they dont even if they do. ports/ (as usual/ often) is a mess, various broken things, competing versions a host of other niggles, (well I use a Lot of ports, to be precise I use all of http://berklix.com/~jhs/src/bsd/fixes/FreeBSD/ports/jhs/*/Makefile.local life's too short to document fix all problems, (+ prob reports dont belong here but in dmesg. or ports@) make has a problem on amd64 5.4-rel., I reported it, tested reported OK on fixes from Harti Brandt, who wrote Thu, 2 Jun: I have committed it to RELENG_5. I've set the MFC timer to two weeks. GCC 3.4.2 on 5.4-RELEASE has a bug for amd64, I started avoiding that by putting CFLAGS= -O0 in /etc/make.conf More info from: Message from David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] of Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:26:15 PDT. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I had some other problems I can't remember off hand, but I got tired of agravation so retreated to 5.3-rel. I also run 4.10, 4.11 various 5.* on other gates, net servers, internal hosts. Doubtless 5.4 has loads of great additions over 5.3, doubtless most of my hastles can be fixed/ avoided/ diagnosed etc, but it was just too much hastle all at once, hence my back to 5.3 forward to stable on just one partition dual approach. This is Not a complaint, I still Really like FreeBSD, I'm just less enthusiastic about 5.4-RELEASE than 5.3. (Perhaps one might find others saying the opposite probably depends what features one uses). - Julian StaceyNet Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Mail in Ascii (Html=Spam). Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Charles Swiger wrote: Yanking a mounted device out from under Unix has always been a no- no. It would be nice if FreeBSD handled this better, but this problem falls into the operator error: don't do that category. I'm aware that some things have different priority but it is imho inacceptable over the long run, that if you (accidentally) rip out a mounted usb stick, that the system is unable to flush _any_ buffers and panics upon shutdown. This should be fixed, why doesn't the kernel just discard the buffers for the disappeared device? While it is an operator error, users accidentally pulling usb sticks, iPods, etc. is something that just happens (happened to me 3 times already). 5.3 and earlier especially have struck me as being noticably slower than 4.10 or so, but there have been significant improvements since then, and 5.4 and 4.1x seem to be comparable. To do better than a There has been a thread going on here some time ago where I wrote about this. mkb. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Jun 8, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: A few problems I've had include: rdist works on 5.3 source host, but not from 5.4+amd64 (yes, I'm sure someone's out there will work, but Mine doesn't (user su) does with 5.3, which iis all that maters to me :-) also rdist depends on which of rdist rdist6 44bsd-rdist, which protocol, what version other end etc, which is why I'd not mentioned till now, yes I know rsync works too, but I'm comfortable with rdist[6]) 5.3, not 5.4. I don't think it has to do with amd64. rdist6 just plain refuses to use ssh when running as root, making it mostly useless for updating system files. it works just fine (amd64 and i386) on 5.4 as a regular user. Vivek Khera, Ph.D. +1-301-869-4449 x806
RE: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
-Original Message- From: Matthias Buelow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 8:26 PM If that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be careless to migrate now. If it works, why change it? My experience with the 5.x tree so far is that it's ok for a SOHO or private environment but I wouldn't trust it if my money (or job) depended on it. Maybe in a year, or two but not now. I have a few reasons for considering a move away from Trustix and linux. Main reason: I deployed a couple of boxes about 12 months ago when there was no clear version of TSL to use - the 1.5 release was dated and winding up support wise, and the 2.1 release was an interim release with a shorter than normal support lifespan (ending end of this month, 6 months after the 2.2 release). There is a 2.1 - 2.2 upgrade procedure, but it's not supported and thus risky to do remotely on the more important of these machines. 2.1 has proven rock solid for me, but since security updates wont be released after the end of the month, I have to do something one way or another. Other reasons: I found that jails are much more powerful than the linux chroot() call - and I love that the installer lets you install in an arbitrary dir on the filesystem. Many seasoned unix people have spoken to me about how much more stable FreeBSD is, although at the risk of starting a flame war I'm not convinced that this is still the case, at least not for the 5 series vs Trustix. (vs most linux distributions - sure :D ) Ports are cool. Trustix doesn't provide an exim package, so I'm forever updating that myself. Filesystem snapshots .. UnionFS. -- I'd like to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts on this matter. I have decided to stick with Trustix on our servers for now, and maybe start playing with FreeBSD on some real boxes and maybe try running a FreeBSD desktop. I am attracted to the FreeBSD way of doing things, but given that I'm not yet an experienced FreeBSD user I might be taking a bit of a risk by migrating at this stage. Cheers, David Hogan ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:04:20PM -0400, Charles Swiger wrote: However, it's common to find half-decent hardware RAID functionality on many x86 and AMD64 motherboards, and PCI-based RAID cards are not very expensive. Of course, asr() isn't 64 bit safe, so that can throw a wrinkle into the AMD64 story... :-/ And, yeah, I have considered volunteering for this. Bruce -- I like bad! Bruce BurdenAustin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:42:45 -0400 Mike Tancsa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:20 PM 08/06/2005, Matthias Buelow wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? It is safe saying a lot has changed since releng_5_3. The most imporant, imo, were those that happened shortly after releng_5_3 was released. Those fixed a few annoying problems I had with it. I feel perfectly safe running 5.4 in a production enviroment. Never had any problems with it. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:04:28 +0200 Marc Olzheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:42:45PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? Personnally, when upgrading from 4.x to 5.x, we ran into the following 3 issues that are still not fixed in 5.4: kern/80617: Hangup writing large blocks to NFS mounted FS(Patches available) Not exremely important: just don't do that. kern/79208: i387 libm's floorf(), ceilf() and truncf() (Fixed in RELENG_5) PITA when running threaded calculations. kern/78824 socketpair()/close() race condition (Fixed in CURRENT) Patch will be MFC'd to RELENG_5 soon. Anyway: you won't catch me running an unpatched 5.4 system... I'd say stick with RELENG_5 for the time being. Given the choice, I can't see any reason not to run a system that is not using the current stable. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:01:55 +0200 Matthias Buelow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Tancsa wrote: I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? I won't go into the details here; it has crashed and frozen on me on several occasions, it behaves badly when you do things it does not expect, like pulling a mounted USB stick, it doesn't have working software RAID (Ok, vinum never worked properly but that's a different story), and it's performance is sub-par. I consider it production ready when the new architecture has fully been implemented, GIANT is gone, all those race conditions and deadlocks that seemingly still persist have been fixed, and is has weathered a release or two after that without apparent problems. I just had to try the USB part... other than having to unmount it and remount it, I had no problems. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:04:20 -0400 Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Matthias Buelow wrote: Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do you feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? I won't go into the details here; it has crashed and frozen on me on several occasions, it behaves badly when you do things it does not expect, like pulling a mounted USB stick, Yanking a mounted device out from under Unix has always been a no- no. It would be nice if FreeBSD handled this better, but this problem falls into the operator error: don't do that category. it doesn't have working software RAID (Ok, vinum never worked properly but that's a different story), This is a valid point-- the migration to 5.x and gvinum has not been pretty, and there are some gotchas lurking when people try to deal with multi-terabyte RAID arrays, MBR vs GPT, and so forth. However, it's common to find half-decent hardware RAID functionality on many x86 and AMD64 motherboards, and PCI-based RAID cards are not very expensive. I'd rather use RAID in hardware than software, myself, but if you think the current status of software RAID in 5.x isn't production ready, that strikes me as an understandable position to hold. and it's performance is sub-par. 5.3 and earlier especially have struck me as being noticably slower than 4.10 or so, but there have been significant improvements since then, and 5.4 and 4.1x seem to be comparable. To do better than a broad generalization, however, you really need to pick some tasks and do real benchmarking to compare what is really going on. Debugging and ect turned on was what did it on the ones before releng_5_3. There where also some nice commits right after releng_5_3. I noticed a nice jump when the last of debugging was turned off and then again after a few commits hit nearly right after releng_5_3. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:20:49PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote: Freddie Cash wrote: The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's not an issue any more). I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was ^ completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes. I respect your observations, but wasn't this still flagged as early adoptors ?! And ... these times pass by .. we have 2005 now and 5.4. Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 5.4 Need a magic printfilter today ? - http://www.apsfilter.org/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
Hi List, First of all, I'm new regarding FreeBSD, But i'm an experienced linux user who's been using the Trustix distribution for the last few years, so please bear with me. In my time using Trustix, and participating in the mailing lists, it has proven an exceptionally stable server distribution. Recently though, I've been playing around with FreeBSD 5.4 on a vmware box, and I'm beginning to think it may be the way forward in the long run. Having observed freebsd-stable@freebsd.org for the last couple of weeks, I've noticed a worrying (to me) amount of traffic regarding kernel panics, general instability etc, and I'm now posting this in the hope that I might obtain perspective on this from some experienced FreeBSD users. In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? I realise that the FreeBSD user base is a much larger one than the Trustix user base, and I could be led to believe that the vast majority of people using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general impression that something's up with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4? Anyone care to share their thoughts? Cheers, David Hogan ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
On 2005-06-08, David Hogan wrote: Recently though, I've been playing around with FreeBSD 5.4 on a vmware box, and I'm beginning to think it may be the way forward in the long run. Having observed freebsd-stable@freebsd.org for the last couple of weeks, I've noticed a worrying (to me) amount of traffic regarding kernel panics, general instability etc, and I'm now posting this in the hope that I might obtain perspective on this from some experienced FreeBSD users. In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? I realise that the FreeBSD user base is a much larger one than the Trustix user base, and I could be led to believe that the vast majority of people using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general impression that something's up with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4? I'm currently moving all my customers from 4.x to 5.4 (having run 5.3 and 5.4 on my own machines for some months). I would not move if they used multi-processor machines or non-Intel machines -- but I would not allow my customers to use stuff like that anyway, as none of it is really ready for production use. If you're using standard uni-processor Intel boxes, there's no reason not to go with 5.4; and there are lots of reasons to go with it (and with 6.2 or so when it comes out). Greg ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
At 08:13 PM 07/06/2005, David Hogan wrote: using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general impression that something's up with the stability of the 5.4 release. It always depends on what hardware you are using, whether RELENG_4 or RELENG_5. If I were to deploy a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4? RELENG_5 for sure. We have a number of CPU intensive boxes (20+) handling mail / virus scanning and IPSEC terminations. They are the way go to. Our mail routers can get blasted with a good 1000+ processes at times.. Again, no issues. IPSEC is a good example where you have a more stable box in RELENG_5 then RELENG_4. There are a number of bugs and issues in RELENG_4 that are gone in RELENG_5 ---Mike ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
