Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
On 2006-12-12 23:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:49 PM 12/12/2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The reason that questions doesen't require a subscription ought to be obvious to anyone with any experience with FreeBSD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is used as the default contact e-mail address for most non-financial FreeBSD dealings, such as on CD cases, NOPE. Disagree Completely. You are way out of touch. Those people don't comprehend a mailing list. They do web pages and web forums and other clumsy devices. Put it on www.freebsd.org if you want it easily accessible to such people. The list *is* mentioned on the web site as the place to ask general FreeBSD questions, already :-/ As I wrote elsethread, I don't find the style of Ted's post very nice, but we should definitely find a way to clarify why this list is open. The freebsd-questions mailing is is not the same as freebsd-hackers, or freebsd-rc, or other much more technical lists. It is being used as a first contact point, both for technical and non-technical people. Some of the less technical posters may find subscribing before posting strange or even completely incomprehensible. These users will be lost to FreeBSD, if we start making a subscription mandatory. t is for the sake of these, non-technical, users that the list is kept open to posts for anyone. To the long-time subscribers of the list, letting any random average Joe User post, seems silly. This is mostly a result of seeing posts by people who are not acquainted at all with FreeBSD, who don't even know that FreeBSD is not a Linux distribution, or any number of other points which may be irritating for us long-time FreeBSD users. This is a 'sacrifice' which is not totally worthless though. Let me explain why. Keeping the list is not as silly as it may initially seem to be. The list and its openness serve their purpose quite fine, since they lets newcomers to FreeBSD ask questions with a minimum of hassle, and receive answers which are very often characterized by the very same aspects which keep long-time subscribers still posting here: * The answers are usually to the point, correct, technically valid, complete (even including examples) * The answers are from people who are already using FreeBSD, and most of the time know their stuff * The answers start coming in pretty soon after the initial post (this is a side-effect of having subcribers around the globe, from almost all timezones) * The answers often include pointers to more documentation, to which the interested new user may refer for more details All these are qualities which are not strictly related to the openness of the list. When combined with the openness of teh list, though, they form the nucleus of what initially keeps a lot of new users around. I know it is what kept *me* around, what kept a lot of the FreeBSD users I personally know around, and I can only guess, but I'm fairly confident that the same applies to a huge amount of the people who have posted here during their first baby-steps with FreeBSD. - Giorgos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
On 2006-12-12 20:36, Bob Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 04:49:39PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: a young girl in a tank top and boobs out front Isn't that where the boobs are usually installed? Well, yes, most of the time :P Until then STFU you ungrateful bastards. All you once were dumb newbies who didn't know FreeBSD from free beer, and I'll bet more than a few of you sent e-mail to questions, thinking it was an actual person who gave a damn. Boy were you surprised! That's exactly what happened to me, back in the time of FBSD 4.3. And I got a response from an actual knowledgeable person who gave a damn. The only thing better would have been a young girl in a tank top and boobs out front. While Ted has a unique personal style of writing, to which I don't totally subscribe, he is quite right about this one. There is a reason that the freebsd-questions list does not require a subscription, and he got it 100% right. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
Lane wrote: On Monday 11 December 2006 01:18, Matthew Seaman wrote: listvj wrote: I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x. I currently track 4.x stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade. First, should I bother? My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4). I host email and web sites for a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured on it which will have to be upgraded too. I have users counting particularly on mail service not being down for too long. Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone tell me: 1) Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading 2) Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading 3) Also any general advice from personal experience. 4) Just how risky is this? Uh -- why upgrade to a branch (5.x) that has already had it's last release and is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x? You should really be looking at upgrading to 6.2-RELEASE just as soon as it comes out (Real Soon Now). As for risk -- for various reasons you will be better off doing a clean install of 6.x and rebuilding your server from the ground up. It's no more risky than installing any other server -- unless you have some legacy binary-only application that you absolutely have to run, it is virtually certain to succeed. You biggest problem would seem to be the downtime required to do the update -- if you can manage it, probably the least consumer impact method is building the upgraded system on fresh disks on a scratch box, and then finishing the upgrade by a disk-swap. Which also has the added benefit that you have a ready-made back out path. Cheers, Matthew Matthew, I agree with your advice to build the new server with a clean install, if only to prevent any sendmail issues. But I'm not so sure I understand your assessment that 5.x is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x. While I agree that 6.x is a great improvement in functionality over 5.x, I was not aware of the poor performance record of 5.x. Do you know of any links to benchmark tests, or other data, which would provide some more background on this? That kind of data would greatly influence my opinion in this discussion. Without it I'd be pleased to recommend 5.X, regardless of it's pending drop dead date, wrt support. I certainly see no need to chain myself to any software release cycle, nor, it seems, does the original poster. I'm in awe of his patience, and clearly he is satisfied with the product if he remains on 4.11. Thanks, lane ~Still running 5.x That's comment was based on my experience running a few hundred FreeBSD servers of various models and OS versions. I should qualify that by saying that 4.x performance really shines when you're using single processor boxes and not running heavily multithreaded applications. On the other hand, 6.x does very well all round, especially with multithreaded applications and multiple CPUs. Of course, you also need 6.x for AMD64 support. 5.x wasn't in any sense bad, but the difference in performance between 5.x and 6.x is very obvious even without running exhaustive benchmarks. There's no good reason I know of to prefer 5.x to 6.x. Remember too that the policy about when releases were created and how they were numbered changed between 5.x and 6.x: previously a major version number change was made when some target set of functionality was implemented. Now the major version number is bumped every 18 months (I think -- something like that anyhow), using whatever new stuff has gone into HEAD since the last major bump. 6.x is in many ways what the project had intended 5.x to be, before becoming mired in the difficult transition from 4.x to 5.x. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3 7 Priory Courtyard PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW, UK signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 23:10 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those people don't comprehend a mailing list. They do web pages and web forums and other clumsy devices. Put it on www.freebsd.org if you want it easily accessible to such people. Those people, are probably future FreeBSD user's, and sysadmins. You don't know their age, or anything about them. They could be in college, or high school for all you know. They could be in their 30's in the middle of a career change. They may just not know any better. It would be wise to try to guide those people, as they too count when it comes to supporting FreeBSD and the community that surrounds it. I think the point is that we are not all born sophisticated user's of FreeBSD. Exactly what would you put on the homepage? A big banner stating that all newbies and clueless people in general should...? A message board, since that's what such people are used to? That's my .02 as someone who's been there, done that in probably the most clumsy way possible. :-) Bob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:36:14PM -0500, Bob Hall wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 04:49:39PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: a young girl in a tank top and boobs out front Isn't that where the boobs are usually installed? Until then STFU you ungrateful bastards. All you once were dumb newbies who didn't know FreeBSD from free beer, and I'll bet more than a few of you sent e-mail to questions, thinking it was an actual person who gave a damn. Boy were you surprised! That's exactly what happened to me, back in the time of FBSD 4.3. And I got a response from an actual knowledgeable person who gave a damn. The only thing better would have been a young girl in a tank top and boobs out front. I vote for both.(I'm greedy) jerry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
At 05:59 PM 12/11/2006, Gerard Seibert wrote: Besides, how hard is it to subscribe to a list, post your question and hopefully receive a satisfactory response and then terminate your association with the list if you are so inclined. Wasn't going to say anything, but... I agree totally that you should have to be subscribed to post. This isn't AOL 101 -- some pittance of technical competence is a prereq'. Try Googling before posting is a repeated several times daily; why not make 'em subscribe first? Might cut down on some of that, as well as the spam scam emails. I can't recall any other mailing lists I've been on in the last 10 years that allow non-subscribed posts. And from a more personal view, the no subscription required has bitten me at least once -- I always use alias addresses for publicly archived lists, since they will inevitably be scrapped up by the spammers and abused. I forgot to select the correct From on a post a few weeks ago; now a real address is chiseled in granite on the web archive, and I'll probably have to abandon it soon. Would have much rather had it bounced back at me. -Wayne ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
The reason that questions doesen't require a subscription ought to be obvious to anyone with any experience with FreeBSD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is used as the default contact e-mail address for most non-financial FreeBSD dealings, such as on CD cases, marketing materials, etc. Why? Because for most newbies they think they are dealing with a cohesive organization with a young girl in a tank top and boobs out front answering the damn phone. They DON'T think they are dealing with a bunch of hayseeds sitting on their computers wanking at each other. When your ready to field all of those questions from misguided newbies, mistaken newspaper article writers, company wanks told by their superiors to investigate this freeBSd thing then we can make questions an opt-in list. Until then STFU you ungrateful bastards. All you once were dumb newbies who didn't know FreeBSD from free beer, and I'll bet more than a few of you sent e-mail to questions, thinking it was an actual person who gave a damn. Boy were you surprised! Ted - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:52 PM Subject: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x) At 05:59 PM 12/11/2006, Gerard Seibert wrote: Besides, how hard is it to subscribe to a list, post your question and hopefully receive a satisfactory response and then terminate your association with the list if you are so inclined. Wasn't going to say anything, but... I agree totally that you should have to be subscribed to post. This isn't AOL 101 -- some pittance of technical competence is a prereq'. Try Googling before posting is a repeated several times daily; why not make 'em subscribe first? Might cut down on some of that, as well as the spam scam emails. I can't recall any other mailing lists I've been on in the last 10 years that allow non-subscribed posts. And from a more personal view, the no subscription required has bitten me at least once -- I always use alias addresses for publicly archived lists, since they will inevitably be scrapped up by the spammers and abused. I forgot to select the correct From on a post a few weeks ago; now a real address is chiseled in granite on the web archive, and I'll probably have to abandon it soon. Would have much rather had it bounced back at me. -Wayne ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 04:49:39PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: a young girl in a tank top and boobs out front Isn't that where the boobs are usually installed? Until then STFU you ungrateful bastards. All you once were dumb newbies who didn't know FreeBSD from free beer, and I'll bet more than a few of you sent e-mail to questions, thinking it was an actual person who gave a damn. Boy were you surprised! That's exactly what happened to me, back in the time of FBSD 4.3. And I got a response from an actual knowledgeable person who gave a damn. The only thing better would have been a young girl in a tank top and boobs out front. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
On Tuesday, 12 December 2006 at 16:49:39 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Until then STFU you ungrateful bastards. All you once were dumb newbies who didn't know FreeBSD from free beer, and I'll bet more than a few of you sent e-mail to questions, thinking it was an actual person who gave a damn. Boy were you surprised! Ted, there are other aspects of the list protocol. One has to do with message format. You seem to have great difficulty with this one, requiring other people to manually reformat, and often to guess what you're talking about. Another has to do with politeness. You seem to abuse this one again and again; it's one of the reasons why I seldom read this mailing list any more. You've probably driven off a number of people who would be able to give *helpful* answers. Please stop. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers. pgp6idP3CZE8E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 12:31:39PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Tuesday, 12 December 2006 at 16:49:39 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Until then STFU you ungrateful bastards. All you once were dumb newbies who didn't know FreeBSD from free beer, and I'll bet more than a few of you sent e-mail to questions, thinking it was an actual person who gave a damn. Boy were you surprised! Ted, there are other aspects of the list protocol. One has to do with message format. You seem to have great difficulty with this one, requiring other people to manually reformat, and often to guess what you're talking about. Another has to do with politeness. You seem to abuse this one again and again; it's one of the reasons why I seldom read this mailing list any more. You've probably driven off a number of people who would be able to give *helpful* answers. Please stop. Yeah, I've been procmailing him to /dev/null for a couple of years now. Kris pgpOBSvfEV8Ao.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 20:01, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Tuesday, 12 December 2006 at 16:49:39 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Until then STFU you ungrateful bastards. All you once were dumb newbies who didn't know FreeBSD from free beer, and I'll bet more than a few of you sent e-mail to questions, thinking it was an actual person who gave a damn. Boy were you surprised! Ted, there are other aspects of the list protocol. One has to do with message format. You seem to have great difficulty with this one, requiring other people to manually reformat, and often to guess what you're talking about. Another has to do with politeness. You seem to abuse this one again and again; it's one of the reasons why I seldom read this mailing list any more. You've probably driven off a number of people who would be able to give *helpful* answers. Please stop. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers. Not that Ted needs any defense, but ... He's also made a few of us pay attention and pitch in. God love him! Now where is the girl in the tank top? lane ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List Protocol (was: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x)
At 07:49 PM 12/12/2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The reason that questions doesen't require a subscription ought to be obvious to anyone with any experience with FreeBSD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is used as the default contact e-mail address for most non-financial FreeBSD dealings, such as on CD cases, NOPE. Disagree Completely. You are way out of touch. Those people don't comprehend a mailing list. They do web pages and web forums and other clumsy devices. Put it on www.freebsd.org if you want it easily accessible to such people. They DON'T think they are dealing with a bunch of hayseeds sitting on their computers wanking at each other. I have some gripe with the list and its membership, but have never accused it of being a circle-jerk. Until then STFU you ungrateful bastards. All you once were dumb newbies Shut Up. Those guys are in the windoze or linux 'fest. -WC ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
On Monday 11 December 2006 01:18, Matthew Seaman wrote: listvj wrote: I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x. I currently track 4.x stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade. First, should I bother? My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4). I host email and web sites for a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured on it which will have to be upgraded too. I have users counting particularly on mail service not being down for too long. Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone tell me: 1) Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading 2) Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading 3) Also any general advice from personal experience. 4) Just how risky is this? Uh -- why upgrade to a branch (5.x) that has already had it's last release and is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x? You should really be looking at upgrading to 6.2-RELEASE just as soon as it comes out (Real Soon Now). As for risk -- for various reasons you will be better off doing a clean install of 6.x and rebuilding your server from the ground up. It's no more risky than installing any other server -- unless you have some legacy binary-only application that you absolutely have to run, it is virtually certain to succeed. You biggest problem would seem to be the downtime required to do the update -- if you can manage it, probably the least consumer impact method is building the upgraded system on fresh disks on a scratch box, and then finishing the upgrade by a disk-swap. Which also has the added benefit that you have a ready-made back out path. Cheers, Matthew Matthew, I agree with your advice to build the new server with a clean install, if only to prevent any sendmail issues. But I'm not so sure I understand your assessment that 5.x is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x. While I agree that 6.x is a great improvement in functionality over 5.x, I was not aware of the poor performance record of 5.x. Do you know of any links to benchmark tests, or other data, which would provide some more background on this? That kind of data would greatly influence my opinion in this discussion. Without it I'd be pleased to recommend 5.X, regardless of it's pending drop dead date, wrt support. I certainly see no need to chain myself to any software release cycle, nor, it seems, does the original poster. I'm in awe of his patience, and clearly he is satisfied with the product if he remains on 4.11. Thanks, lane ~Still running 5.x ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
Lane wrote: On Monday 11 December 2006 01:18, Matthew Seaman wrote: listvj wrote: I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x. I currently track 4.x stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade. First, should I bother? My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4). I host email and web sites for a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured on it which will have to be upgraded too. I have users counting particularly on mail service not being down for too long. Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone tell me: 1) Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading 2) Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading 3) Also any general advice from personal experience. 4) Just how risky is this? Uh -- why upgrade to a branch (5.x) that has already had it's last release and is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x? You should really be looking at upgrading to 6.2-RELEASE just as soon as it comes out (Real Soon Now). As for risk -- for various reasons you will be better off doing a clean install of 6.x and rebuilding your server from the ground up. It's no more risky than installing any other server -- unless you have some legacy binary-only application that you absolutely have to run, it is virtually certain to succeed. You biggest problem would seem to be the downtime required to do the update -- if you can manage it, probably the least consumer impact method is building the upgraded system on fresh disks on a scratch box, and then finishing the upgrade by a disk-swap. Which also has the added benefit that you have a ready-made back out path. Cheers, Matthew Matthew, I agree with your advice to build the new server with a clean install, if only to prevent any sendmail issues. But I'm not so sure I understand your assessment that 5.x is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x. While I agree that 6.x is a great improvement in functionality over 5.x, I was not aware of the poor performance record of 5.x. Do you know of any links to benchmark tests, or other data, which would provide some more background on this? That kind of data would greatly influence my opinion in this discussion. Without it I'd be pleased to recommend 5.X, regardless of it's pending drop dead date, wrt support. I certainly see no need to chain myself to any software release cycle, nor, it seems, does the original poster. I'm in awe of his patience, and clearly he is satisfied with the product if he remains on 4.11. Thanks, lane ~Still running 5.x ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm on 4.11 because I'm lazy and chicken. The server is co-located so it isn't real convenient to do major upgrades. It might actually be easier and more cost effective (in terms of my time) to get a replacement box, set up 6.0 on it, and migrate. Btw, I'm sorry for posting this question twice. I posted the first one with the wrong email address. I was surprised (and disappointed) to see that the list accepted it as I did not subscribe to the list with that address. :( ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
listvj wrote:
Lane wrote:
I agree with your advice to build the new server with a clean install,
if only to prevent any sendmail issues.
But I'm not so sure I understand your assessment that 5.x is worse
performing than both 4.x and 6.x. While I agree that 6.x is a great
improvement in functionality over 5.x, I was not aware of the poor
performance record of 5.x.
Do you know of any links to benchmark tests, or other data, which
would provide some more background on this?
That kind of data would greatly influence my opinion in this
discussion. Without it I'd be pleased to recommend 5.X, regardless of
it's pending drop dead date, wrt support. I certainly see no need
to chain myself to any software release cycle, nor, it seems, does the
original poster. I'm in awe of his patience, and clearly he is
satisfied with the product if he remains on 4.11.
Thanks,
lane
~Still running 5.x
I'm on 4.11 because I'm lazy and chicken. The server is co-located so
it isn't real convenient to do major upgrades. It might actually be
easier and more cost effective (in terms of my time) to get a
replacement box, set up 6.0 on it, and migrate.
Btw, I'm sorry for posting this question twice. I posted the first one
with the wrong email address. I was surprised (and disappointed) to see
that the list accepted it as I did not subscribe to the list with that
address. :(
As I was told, the list was open so they don't restrict email
addresses. They just have a fabulous spam catching system which only
admits spam on rare occasions it seems {gotta get a hold of their
spamassassin file :D).
Unfortunately, this is where having an uninstall and install
script would be more than handy on FreeBSD.. if someone could conjure up
a script like that, that would be safe to use-even remotely-then maybe
this wouldn't be so much of an issue.
- -Garrett
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFfZlL6CkrZkzMC68RAgtdAJ9ol57lanXU8LCnxb2JtWP2mYSVVQCfacfT
fd+0zG6C+dKy6Lf/bnxdivg=
=oQnx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:26:02PM -0500, listvj wrote: Lane wrote: On Monday 11 December 2006 01:18, Matthew Seaman wrote: listvj wrote: I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x. I currently track 4.x stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade. First, should I bother? My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4). I host email and web sites for a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured on it which will have to be upgraded too. I have users counting particularly on mail service not being down for too long. Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone tell me: 1) Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading 2) Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading 3) Also any general advice from personal experience. 4) Just how risky is this? Matthew, I agree with your advice to build the new server with a clean install, if only to prevent any sendmail issues. But I'm not so sure I understand your assessment that 5.x is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x. While I agree that 6.x is a great improvement in functionality over 5.x, I was not aware of the poor performance record of 5.x. Do you know of any links to benchmark tests, or other data, which would provide some more background on this? That kind of data would greatly influence my opinion in this discussion. Without it I'd be pleased to recommend 5.X, regardless of it's pending drop dead date, wrt support. I certainly see no need to chain myself to any software release cycle, nor, it seems, does the original poster. I'm in awe of his patience, and clearly he is satisfied with the product if he remains on 4.11. I just remember seeing a number of posts about reduced performance due to major changes and lots of debug stuff left in for the time being. Thanks, lane ~Still running 5.x ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm on 4.11 because I'm lazy and chicken. The server is co-located so it isn't real convenient to do major upgrades. It might actually be easier and more cost effective (in terms of my time) to get a replacement box, set up 6.0 on it, and migrate. Well, if you can really do that, it is a nice way of going -- especially jumping to 6.xx because you really want to do a clean install of 6.xx because it has some file system improvements what you won't get by just doing an upgrade without rebuilding the file systems (it would just keep using the old file systems if you don't do a clean install - it is not a devastating loss, but you might as well get the full treatment now). So, install 6.2 on a new machine and then move over your working files. I always recommend arranging file systems to make it easy to keep your own stuff separate from system stuff and ports, but some things don't seem to encourage that behavior, unfortunately. Go all the way to 6.2 for the new system. 6.xx is good. I haven't had any trouble with it. My only problem is that no-one has upgraded an AFS client to run on it yet - not ARLA nor OpenAFS so I had to put together a separate machine running 5.5 to have an AFS client. The 6.2 RELEASE is supposed to be out any minute now. The date has been slipping. I haven't tried to follow what is being waited on. Btw, I'm sorry for posting this question twice. I posted the first one with the wrong email address. I was surprised (and disappointed) to see that the list accepted it as I did not subscribe to the list with that address. :( Don't worry about it. The FreeBSD questions allows all posts except it does have some spam filtering on it. The rationale is that the questions must get through regardless of whether someone is subscribed; that the few spam misses are less of a problem than potentially blocking legitimate questions. jerry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade - 4.11 to 5.x
On Sunday 10 December 2006 15:41, Valen Jones wrote: I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x. I currently track 4.x stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade. First, should I bother? My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4). I host a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured on it which will have to be upgraded too. I have users counting particularly on mail service not being down for too long. Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone tell me: 1) Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading 2) Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading 3) Also any general advice from personal experience. Beech's advice is sound. I would stress that the simplest and easiest by far is indeed a clean install. And take two backups, if you have customers counting on things going right. Make sure your backups are readable, usable and complete (no bad spots on tape media, no files inadvertently omitted, etc.). If at all possible, leave the production system running and begin the new installation on separate hardware. If you have a fast new machine to migrate onto, do that. However your current hardware sounds adequate for the light load you describe. If you have just a spare machine of nearly the same horsepower and configuration, you could do the new installation on the spare machine, get it configured and tested, and then backup the old machine twice, wipe the drive and re-partition, and then transfer the newly-built configuration onto your production hardware. Watch out for /etc/fstab gotchas, like if the test machine has an ad0 ATA drive and the production is da0 SCSI. This will allow you to do a lot of migration, testing and tweaking off-line, without your customers noticing much downtime, except for the final changeover. How current are your installed ports? Review the ports you do have installed, and see whether you're really still using them. It will save you a little time on the new machine by not having to build ports you don't really need anymore. Look at your key applications, and where there are significant version changes between what you're running and what's current, familiarize yourself with the upgrade issues (if any) that each port presents. Be prepared to test any new features you hope to use, or to regression test to make sure that legacy functionality still works the way you expect. This might be the time to switch to Apache 2, for example, if you want to. But some things that worked under 1.3 will have to be adjusted to work under 2. At the least, it would be good to upgrade to the latest 1.3.x, to use Apache as an example. As for #3, I have grown fond of using a FreesBIE or other live CD for steps like booting the migration/test box to create a backup image of the new 6.X filesystem, and then also to boot the production box for the final changeover to transfer that backup image onto the production disk. That way your file system in an off-line (inactive) state, where you can cleanly backup the old production filesystem (twice!), then wipe and re-partition, and transfer the new configuration image onto the production drive likewise in a clean state. If you haven't already, spend some time just experimenting on a test machine, and make friends with FreesBIE and/or the Fixit live CD mode of FreeBSD installation media. Good luck! Jim ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:26:02 -0500 From: listvj [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Btw, I'm sorry for posting this question twice. I posted the first one with the wrong email address. I was surprised (and disappointed) to see that the list accepted it as I did not subscribe to the list with that address. :( Why are you disappointed that the list accepts email from anyone who needs FreeBSD support? Personally, I dislike some of the lists where you have to join the club before you can ask a question to receive support. By the way, that is why it is customary to Cc: both the person and and the list when replying. It doesn't do any good to send a response to the list if the person who asked the question isn't subscribed. Jim ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
James Long wrote: Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:26:02 -0500 From: listvj [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Btw, I'm sorry for posting this question twice. I posted the first one with the wrong email address. I was surprised (and disappointed) to see that the list accepted it as I did not subscribe to the list with that address. :( Why are you disappointed that the list accepts email from anyone who needs FreeBSD support? Personally, I dislike some of the lists where you have to join the club before you can ask a question to receive support. By the way, that is why it is customary to Cc: both the person and and the list when replying. It doesn't do any good to send a response to the list if the person who asked the question isn't subscribed. Jim ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the clarification. I'm not disappointed in the list's policies. I'm disappointed that I didn't know what they were and that I wasn't a bit more careful with my email addresses. I'm sure the information about how the list works is posted somewhere and I just didn't read it. Oh well. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
On Monday December 11, 2006 at 05:09:01 (PM) James Long wrote: By the way, that is why it is customary to Cc: both the person and and the list when replying. It doesn't do any good to send a response to the list if the person who asked the question isn't subscribed. Maybe it is just me, but I hate that Cc crap. I always end up with two copies of the same message. Unless the individual specifically requests to be Cc'd, I never utilize it. Besides, how hard is it to subscribe to a list, post your question and hopefully receive a satisfactory response and then terminate your association with the list if you are so inclined. I joined the 'Apache' forum just to get one simple answer, then exited. Not a big deal at all. Just my 2ยข. -- Gerard When in doubt, cop an attitude. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
On Dec 11, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Gerard Seibert wrote: On Monday December 11, 2006 at 05:09:01 (PM) James Long wrote: By the way, that is why it is customary to Cc: both the person and and the list when replying. It doesn't do any good to send a response to the list if the person who asked the question isn't subscribed. Maybe it is just me, but I hate that Cc crap. I always end up with two copies of the same message. Unless the individual specifically requests to be Cc'd, I never utilize it. Besides, how hard is it to subscribe to a list, post your question and hopefully receive a satisfactory response and then terminate your association with the list if you are so inclined. I joined the 'Apache' forum just to get one simple answer, then exited. Not a big deal at all. I agree that the list should only accept mail from subscribed members. Mainly to keep spam and other crap off the list. Most lists I am on (which are technical) require you to be a list member to post. So in this case the FreeBSD policies are not the norm. I am on one list for an MTA where if you CC the orig poster plus send to the list you get in trouble with some folks. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
On Monday 11 December 2006 18:24, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Dec 11, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Gerard Seibert wrote: On Monday December 11, 2006 at 05:09:01 (PM) James Long wrote: By the way, that is why it is customary to Cc: both the person and and the list when replying. It doesn't do any good to send a response to the list if the person who asked the question isn't subscribed. Maybe it is just me, but I hate that Cc crap. I always end up with two copies of the same message. Unless the individual specifically requests to be Cc'd, I never utilize it. Besides, how hard is it to subscribe to a list, post your question and hopefully receive a satisfactory response and then terminate your association with the list if you are so inclined. I joined the 'Apache' forum just to get one simple answer, then exited. Not a big deal at all. I agree that the list should only accept mail from subscribed members. Mainly to keep spam and other crap off the list. Most lists I am on (which are technical) require you to be a list member to post. So in this case the FreeBSD policies are not the norm. I am on one list for an MTA where if you CC the orig poster plus send to the list you get in trouble with some folks. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net I dunno, Chad. I get some of my best Pharmaceuticals from SPAM posted to this list just kidding, of course. But the SPAM on questions- is minimal, and the trade-off is, I think, huge. While many of us track the list regularly, there are much more that just toss a question out, and then google the replies. I think, in terms of server load, it probably is better this way. Not to mention that it is more convenient for the questioners, and thus better for the larger FreeBSD community. I'm not claiming to be right, this is just my opinion, my stinky opinion. lane ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade - 4.11 to 5.x
First I would address the first question. Only you can really answer whether or not there is a benefit. Is there a specific need (e.g. software/hardware support) for you to upgrade? If not then I would recommend against the upgrade. If yes, I why not move to 6.x? I have been running FBSD since 4.0and have run every revision since and would not suggest using 5.x. Either stick with 4.x or move to 6.x based on your requirements. To answer your second question, the best place to look for help is the handbook ( http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html). Also make sure to read /usr/src/UPDATING as this may contain special instructions. It is a general rule of thumb to do a clean install between major revisions though. I have personally done them with success, but would not recommend doing it on a production server if it is your first time doing one (as it sounds to be). Stick to upgrading between minor revisions until you are familiar with the build/make process. Also these mailing lists are a great resource for help as is http://www.bsdforums.org/ (and a few others, use Google). Finally, as mentioned above, from personal experience it is best to stick with a clean install between major revisions. Good luck again, Chad On 12/11/06, James Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 10 December 2006 15:41, Valen Jones wrote: I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x. I currently track 4.x stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade. First, should I bother? My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4). I host a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured on it which will have to be upgraded too. I have users counting particularly on mail service not being down for too long. Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone tell me: 1) Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading 2) Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading 3) Also any general advice from personal experience. Beech's advice is sound. I would stress that the simplest and easiest by far is indeed a clean install. And take two backups, if you have customers counting on things going right. Make sure your backups are readable, usable and complete (no bad spots on tape media, no files inadvertently omitted, etc.). If at all possible, leave the production system running and begin the new installation on separate hardware. If you have a fast new machine to migrate onto, do that. However your current hardware sounds adequate for the light load you describe. If you have just a spare machine of nearly the same horsepower and configuration, you could do the new installation on the spare machine, get it configured and tested, and then backup the old machine twice, wipe the drive and re-partition, and then transfer the newly-built configuration onto your production hardware. Watch out for /etc/fstab gotchas, like if the test machine has an ad0 ATA drive and the production is da0 SCSI. This will allow you to do a lot of migration, testing and tweaking off-line, without your customers noticing much downtime, except for the final changeover. How current are your installed ports? Review the ports you do have installed, and see whether you're really still using them. It will save you a little time on the new machine by not having to build ports you don't really need anymore. Look at your key applications, and where there are significant version changes between what you're running and what's current, familiarize yourself with the upgrade issues (if any) that each port presents. Be prepared to test any new features you hope to use, or to regression test to make sure that legacy functionality still works the way you expect. This might be the time to switch to Apache 2, for example, if you want to. But some things that worked under 1.3 will have to be adjusted to work under 2. At the least, it would be good to upgrade to the latest 1.3.x, to use Apache as an example. As for #3, I have grown fond of using a FreesBIE or other live CD for steps like booting the migration/test box to create a backup image of the new 6.X filesystem, and then also to boot the production box for the final changeover to transfer that backup image onto the production disk. That way your file system in an off-line (inactive) state, where you can cleanly backup the old production filesystem (twice!), then wipe and re-partition, and transfer the new configuration image onto the production drive likewise in a clean state. If you haven't already, spend some time just experimenting on a test machine, and make friends with FreesBIE and/or the Fixit live CD mode of FreeBSD installation media. Good luck! Jim ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL
Re: Major Version Upgrade - 4.11 to 5.x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chad Gross wrote: First I would address the first question. Only you can really answer whether or not there is a benefit. Is there a specific need (e.g. software/hardware support) for you to upgrade? If not then I would recommend against the upgrade. If yes, I why not move to 6.x? I have been running FBSD since 4.0and have run every revision since and would not suggest using 5.x. Either stick with 4.x or move to 6.x based on your requirements. To answer your second question, the best place to look for help is the handbook ( http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html). Also make sure to read /usr/src/UPDATING as this may contain special instructions. It is a general rule of thumb to do a clean install between major revisions though. I have personally done them with success, but would not recommend doing it on a production server if it is your first time doing one (as it sounds to be). Stick to upgrading between minor revisions until you are familiar with the build/make process. Also these mailing lists are a great resource for help as is http://www.bsdforums.org/ (and a few others, use Google). Finally, as mentioned above, from personal experience it is best to stick with a clean install between major revisions. Good luck again, Chad Bad way to look at things, given that 4.x isn't supported anymore by the FreeBSD group; so anything either userland or core system related that needs to be upgraded due to a security or performance issue would require an upgrade anyhow.. You should run at least 5.x, but it's highly recommended that you go to 6.x, due to performance improvements and the fact that you won't have to source upgrade your system again for a lot longer period of time (than if you moved to 5.x). The only issue is that you don't have direct access to the machine. - -Garrett -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFfgzb6CkrZkzMC68RAq/mAJ9yI77ldLufgbAr31hMFUcvRantjQCfZ0MM MIoBYNgZJfui6Fnn1GlGRXU= =L/oJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade - 4.11 to 5.x
On 12/11/06, Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chad Gross wrote: First I would address the first question. Only you can really answer whether or not there is a benefit. Is there a specific need (e.g. software/hardware support) for you to upgrade? If not then I would recommend against the upgrade. If yes, I why not move to 6.x? I have been running FBSD since 4.0and have run every revision since and would not suggest using 5.x. Either stick with 4.x or move to 6.x based on your requirements. To answer your second question, the best place to look for help is the handbook ( http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html ). Also make sure to read /usr/src/UPDATING as this may contain special instructions. It is a general rule of thumb to do a clean install between major revisions though. I have personally done them with success, but would not recommend doing it on a production server if it is your first time doing one (as it sounds to be). Stick to upgrading between minor revisions until you are familiar with the build/make process. Also these mailing lists are a great resource for help as is http://www.bsdforums.org/ (and a few others, use Google). Finally, as mentioned above, from personal experience it is best to stick with a clean install between major revisions. Good luck again, Chad Bad way to look at things, given that 4.x isn't supported anymore by the FreeBSD group; so anything either userland or core system related that needs to be upgraded due to a security or performance issue would require an upgrade anyhow.. You should run at least 5.x, but it's highly recommended that you go to 6.x, due to performance improvements and the fact that you won't have to source upgrade your system again for a lot longer period of time (than if you moved to 5.x). The only issue is that you don't have direct access to the machine. - -Garrett I apologize, I didn't realize that 4.x was no longer supported (I thought RELENG_4 was still getting commits). In that case, I would make the move to 6.x being that 5.x wasn't exactly the best release performance-wise and it will be moving out of support sooner too. Chad ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade - 4.11 to 5.x
On Monday 11 December 2006 22:13, Chad Gross wrote: On 12/11/06, Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chad Gross wrote: First I would address the first question. Only you can really answer whether or not there is a benefit. Is there a specific need (e.g. software/hardware support) for you to upgrade? If not then I would recommend against the upgrade. If yes, I why not move to 6.x? I have been running FBSD since 4.0and have run every revision since and would not suggest using 5.x. Either stick with 4.x or move to 6.x based on your requirements. To answer your second question, the best place to look for help is the handbook ( http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.htm l ). Also make sure to read /usr/src/UPDATING as this may contain special instructions. It is a general rule of thumb to do a clean install between major revisions though. I have personally done them with success, but would not recommend doing it on a production server if it is your first time doing one (as it sounds to be). Stick to upgrading between minor revisions until you are familiar with the build/make process. Also these mailing lists are a great resource for help as is http://www.bsdforums.org/ (and a few others, use Google). Finally, as mentioned above, from personal experience it is best to stick with a clean install between major revisions. Good luck again, Chad Bad way to look at things, given that 4.x isn't supported anymore by the FreeBSD group; so anything either userland or core system related that needs to be upgraded due to a security or performance issue would require an upgrade anyhow.. You should run at least 5.x, but it's highly recommended that you go to 6.x, due to performance improvements and the fact that you won't have to source upgrade your system again for a lot longer period of time (than if you moved to 5.x). The only issue is that you don't have direct access to the machine. - -Garrett I apologize, I didn't realize that 4.x was no longer supported (I thought RELENG_4 was still getting commits). In that case, I would make the move to 6.x being that 5.x wasn't exactly the best release performance-wise and it will be moving out of support sooner too. Chad Chad, What was the problem with performance in 5.x? I'm not challenging your assertion, not at all. But this is the second time in this thread that I've read comments about poor performance in 5.x, and ... well ... I've not experienced that - quite the contrary. I'm just curious - did I maybe miss some discussion about how poor 5.x was? Thanks for your time lane ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x. I currently track 4.x stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade. First, should I bother? My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4). I host email and web sites for a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured on it which will have to be upgraded too. I have users counting particularly on mail service not being down for too long. Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone tell me: 1) Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading 2) Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading 3) Also any general advice from personal experience. 4) Just how risky is this? Thanks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major Version Upgrade 4.11 to 5.x
listvj wrote: I'm interested in upgrading from 4.11 to 5.x. I currently track 4.x stable using cvsup, but I've never done a major version upgrade. First, should I bother? My hardware has dual pentium 1.13 processors with 1G ram (I'm considering maxing it out at 4). I host email and web sites for a few domains on this machine and I have four jails configured on it which will have to be upgraded too. I have users counting particularly on mail service not being down for too long. Other than the obvious advice to start with a good backup, can anyone tell me: 1) Will I gain a major benefit from upgrading 2) Where should I look for instructions / advice on upgrading 3) Also any general advice from personal experience. 4) Just how risky is this? Uh -- why upgrade to a branch (5.x) that has already had it's last release and is worse performing than both 4.x and 6.x? You should really be looking at upgrading to 6.2-RELEASE just as soon as it comes out (Real Soon Now). As for risk -- for various reasons you will be better off doing a clean install of 6.x and rebuilding your server from the ground up. It's no more risky than installing any other server -- unless you have some legacy binary-only application that you absolutely have to run, it is virtually certain to succeed. You biggest problem would seem to be the downtime required to do the update -- if you can manage it, probably the least consumer impact method is building the upgraded system on fresh disks on a scratch box, and then finishing the upgrade by a disk-swap. Which also has the added benefit that you have a ready-made back out path. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
