Re: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5
From: Matthew Emmerton [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated backup/archive computer on a network I administer. I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated) the warnings that it's not really production quality yet. So I'm curious as to a number of facets of its capibilities: 1) With the current developmet effort ... does it seem like 5.1 will be -STABLE ... or do folks feel that a -STABLE brand is further off (5.2?) 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the performance problems that folks have been reporting, and won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 good enough at this point? I know this is inviting a lot of opinion and conjecture ... but I need some idea of where I can go with this. These folks need a solution soon, and I don't want to pass on something that's not ready yet. On the flip side, the nature of the beast means that it doesn't NEED to be a reliable as I normally expect a FreeBSD server to be, so there's a little more tolerance than usual. Any input is greatly appreciated. What's wrong with 4.8-RELEASE? Doesn't support DVD burning. Sorry ... forgot to specify my reasons ;) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5
- Original Message - From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Emmerton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:26 PM Subject: Re: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5 From: Matthew Emmerton [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated backup/archive computer on a network I administer. I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated) the warnings that it's not really production quality yet. So I'm curious as to a number of facets of its capibilities: 1) With the current developmet effort ... does it seem like 5.1 will be -STABLE ... or do folks feel that a -STABLE brand is further off (5.2?) 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the performance problems that folks have been reporting, and won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 good enough at this point? I know this is inviting a lot of opinion and conjecture ... but I need some idea of where I can go with this. These folks need a solution soon, and I don't want to pass on something that's not ready yet. On the flip side, the nature of the beast means that it doesn't NEED to be a reliable as I normally expect a FreeBSD server to be, so there's a little more tolerance than usual. Any input is greatly appreciated. What's wrong with 4.8-RELEASE? Doesn't support DVD burning. Sorry ... forgot to specify my reasons ;) What is the piece you're missing -- UDF filesystem support or ata driver support? I've seen patches to 4-STABLE to add UDF filesystem support. Perhaps that's all you need. -- Matt Emmerton ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5
From: Matthew Emmerton [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Matthew Emmerton [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated backup/archive computer on a network I administer. I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated) the warnings that it's not really production quality yet. So I'm curious as to a number of facets of its capibilities: 1) With the current developmet effort ... does it seem like 5.1 will be -STABLE ... or do folks feel that a -STABLE brand is further off (5.2?) 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the performance problems that folks have been reporting, and won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 good enough at this point? I know this is inviting a lot of opinion and conjecture ... but I need some idea of where I can go with this. These folks need a solution soon, and I don't want to pass on something that's not ready yet. On the flip side, the nature of the beast means that it doesn't NEED to be a reliable as I normally expect a FreeBSD server to be, so there's a little more tolerance than usual. Any input is greatly appreciated. What's wrong with 4.8-RELEASE? Doesn't support DVD burning. Sorry ... forgot to specify my reasons ;) What is the piece you're missing -- UDF filesystem support or ata driver support? I don't know ... hence my posting. I'm still in the planning stages of this project. Budget doesn't allow me to purchase the required hardware until I'm fairly certain that I have a method to make it work (obviously, there's always some chance of unexpected problems, but I'm trying to gather enough information to minimize that) I've seen patches to 4-STABLE to add UDF filesystem support. Perhaps that's all you need. I'll google a bit ... but links would be welcome ;) Thanks for the help so far, Matt. -Bill ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5
- Original Message - From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5 I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated backup/archive computer on a network I administer. I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated) the warnings that it's not really production quality yet. So I'm curious as to a number of facets of its capibilities: 1) With the current developmet effort ... does it seem like 5.1 will be -STABLE ... or do folks feel that a -STABLE brand is further off (5.2?) 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the performance problems that folks have been reporting, and won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 good enough at this point? I know this is inviting a lot of opinion and conjecture ... but I need some idea of where I can go with this. These folks need a solution soon, and I don't want to pass on something that's not ready yet. On the flip side, the nature of the beast means that it doesn't NEED to be a reliable as I normally expect a FreeBSD server to be, so there's a little more tolerance than usual. Any input is greatly appreciated. What's wrong with 4.8-RELEASE? -- Matt Emmerton ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5
Matthew Emmerton wrote: - Original Message - From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Emmerton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:26 PM Subject: Re: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5 From: Matthew Emmerton [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated backup/archive computer on a network I administer. I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated) the warnings that it's not really production quality yet. So I'm curious as to a number of facets of its capibilities: 1) With the current developmet effort ... does it seem like 5.1 will be -STABLE ... or do folks feel that a -STABLE brand is further off (5.2?) 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the performance problems that folks have been reporting, and won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 good enough at this point? I know this is inviting a lot of opinion and conjecture ... but I need some idea of where I can go with this. These folks need a solution soon, and I don't want to pass on something that's not ready yet. On the flip side, the nature of the beast means that it doesn't NEED to be a reliable as I normally expect a FreeBSD server to be, so there's a little more tolerance than usual. Any input is greatly appreciated. What's wrong with 4.8-RELEASE? Doesn't support DVD burning. Sorry ... forgot to specify my reasons ;) What is the piece you're missing -- UDF filesystem support or ata driver support? The UDF support in 5.x is for reading only. DVD data disks do not require the UDF filesystem and can in fact work just fine with cd9660 or even UFS. DVD video disks usually require UDF as dvd players don't understand anything else, but editing and mastering a dvd video disk is well beyond the scope of this and I would highly recommend using a Mac. Burning some of the DVD formats requires special support, while others can be burned just like a CD. I thought that 4.x and 5.x were at the same level for this support, but Soeren would have the definitive answer. I've seen patches to 4-STABLE to add UDF filesystem support. Perhaps that's all you need. Really? I thought that the backporting effort had died out. Can you provide a link? Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Overall feel for the stability of FreeBSD 5
Bill Moran writes: 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the performance problems that folks have been reporting, and won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 good enough at this point? If the system isn't really too critical, I'd go for it. I'm running 5.0 in workstation use and had some problems with agp and X11 up until 5.0-RELEASE-p7, on which I haven't had a crash or freeze yet and all seems to be stable. I'm using scsi and ide on that machine. Apart from the agp/graphics/X11 problem and one (I think) related kernel panic I've experienced with -p7, I've not seen any problems. IMHO it's stable enough for use in a relaxed production environment. The more people who engage in testing it, the more problems (also cutting edges in the userland) get ironed out, and the faster that will happen. --mkb ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
