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: 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]"
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
-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
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 mai
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
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 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
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
> 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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
