Re: Stable server
On 8/16/05, Carstea Catalin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? In addition to other replies, there is a new article at freebsd.org, Choosing the FreeBSD Version That Is Right For You: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/ -- Dmitry Mityugov, St. Petersburg, Russia I ignore all messages with confidentiality statements We live less by imagination than despite it - Rockwell Kent, N by E ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On 8/17/05, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/16/05, dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 4.x compared to 5.x will always be more stable 5.x compared to 6.x will always be more stable 6.x compared to 7.x will al Do you see a trend? 4.x works now but what about in another year, two years, or three? Try running the last version of 3.x on today's hardware and software, 4.x is already having problems with hardware support. FreeBSD 6 already has a -STABLE and it's first release is just around the corner, It would be unwise to deploy 4.x unless specifically needed If you need to build the next Mars rover or a persons life depends on the system working then use 4.x, If your deploying a new web server or what not you want 5.x, possibly even 6.x if you can wait another month or two. Another month or two?? Are you a pessimist, or do you just know something I don't know? :-) This page http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.0R/schedule.html says TBD, but I didn't even imagine the delay could be *that* big. -- Dmitry Mityugov, St. Petersburg, Russia I ignore all messages with confidentiality statements We live less by imagination than despite it - Rockwell Kent, N by E ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On 8/17/05, Dmitry Mityugov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/17/05, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/16/05, dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 4.x compared to 5.x will always be more stable 5.x compared to 6.x will always be more stable 6.x compared to 7.x will al Do you see a trend? 4.x works now but what about in another year, two years, or three? Try running the last version of 3.x on today's hardware and software, 4.x is already having problems with hardware support. FreeBSD 6 already has a -STABLE and it's first release is just around the corner, It would be unwise to deploy 4.x unless specifically needed If you need to build the next Mars rover or a persons life depends on the system working then use 4.x, If your deploying a new web server or what not you want 5.x, possibly even 6.x if you can wait another month or two. Another month or two?? Are you a pessimist, or do you just know something I don't know? :-) This page http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.0R/schedule.html says TBD, but I didn't even imagine the delay could be *that* big. I've been running 6.x on my main desktop since the announce of BETA1 and I think it's ready now! but realistically it's at least a month off schedule based on the schedule you pointed to. BETA1 (15 Jul 2005) to BETA2 (5 Aug 2005) = 21 days. That number, 21days, sounds about right for release testing... so if we use that BETA3 should roll around on the 27th and RC1 on the 17th of September, so some time next month FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE will (should) be here. I don't have any insider info, just experince from past releases. Mañana, the motto for the release engineering team. :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Nikolas Britton wrote: 4.x compared to 5.x will always be more stable 5.x compared to 6.x will always be more stable 6.x compared to 7.x will al Do you see a trend? 4.x works now but what about in another year, two years, or three? I expect it should work just fine in 3 years -- when we purchase hardware we expect it to last at least that long, and there's rarely a truly compelling reason to replace the OS on a server. Try running the last version of 3.x on today's hardware and software, 4.x is already having problems with hardware support. Unfortunately, yeah. 3ware's auto-carving feature (available in 5.4-S) would not work on 4.x as an example. There may be other things, but 4.11 works on relatively standard hardware you can purchase today. FreeBSD 6 already has a -STABLE and it's first release is just around the corner, It would be unwise to deploy 4.x unless specifically needed If you need to build the next Mars rover or a persons life depends on the system working then use 4.x, If your deploying a new web server or what not you want 5.x, possibly even 6.x if you can wait another month or two. It depends. I am really concerned about security updates being backported. While I feel I'm probably capable of handling it myself, if I had to, by reviewing patches submitted for later versions, I feel more confident in the patch when it has been peer-reviewed. The fact is that FreeBSD's 4.11 release is scheduled to have patches long past 5.4, and I have to take that into account when making recommendations to our clients. I don't want to have to tell a customer: Install this OS, but in a year, you'll want to install a different OS, and then deal with incompatibilities with the software you've purchased for your sites. The way I see it, every major release of FreeBSD takes some time to reach stability -- the classic be wary of x.0 versions rule applies here as with almost all software. Stable versions for web servers have been (in my experience): FreeBSD 2.2.(something, I don't remember, 5?), 3.2, 4.5. 5's appears to be 5.4, which so far seems to be pretty great, but was only just recently released May 9th and is set to EOL in about 10 months. Anyways, to the OP, it all depends on how long you want this particular solution to be deployed. I'd keep an eye on the security page (of course). There may be a company/set of hackers out there that would be able to backport fixes to FreeBSD 5.4 after it expires, in case you're not able to deploy the most recent version on that date. I do stand by my recommendation of 4.11, because it is the pinnacle before some architectural changes, and if it's anything like 4.5 or 3.2 it should give you years of quality. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? I'd say 5.4-RELEASE...that's the current production release. -Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On 8/16/05, Carstea Catalin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 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: Stable server
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 . ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
Carstea Catalin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? The Handbook recommends against using a stable branch (RELENG_5 or RELENG_4, which might not even compile) without first thoroughly testing the code in your development environment. But if one is going to thoroughly test the code, one might as will use HEAD, except that it is likely to fail and be a waste of time (or your testing is not thorough enough). So it seems to me that one's choice is between thorough testing of RELENG_5 or less thorough testing of RELENG_5_4 or RELENG_4_11. I'll leave it to those with more experience for choosing between the last two, but it sounds like it's a toss-up, with some recommendations being influenced by conservatism or a desire for more 5 testers. :) Another factor (besides testing effort) in the choice between RELENG_5 and RELENG_5_4 is the number of fixes as measured by the time since RELENG_5_4_0_RELEASE. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, dpk wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 . I forgot to mention the other reason I recommend 4.11 first: http://www.freebsd.org/security/index.html 4.11-R is scheduled to receive security updates 8 months longer than 5.4-R, which may be relevant if you want to stick with a specific version for a while. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On 8/16/05, dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 4.x compared to 5.x will always be more stable 5.x compared to 6.x will always be more stable 6.x compared to 7.x will al Do you see a trend? 4.x works now but what about in another year, two years, or three? Try running the last version of 3.x on today's hardware and software, 4.x is already having problems with hardware support. FreeBSD 6 already has a -STABLE and it's first release is just around the corner, It would be unwise to deploy 4.x unless specifically needed If you need to build the next Mars rover or a persons life depends on the system working then use 4.x, If your deploying a new web server or what not you want 5.x, possibly even 6.x if you can wait another month or two. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
