From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 29 09:34:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08E916A41F for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:34:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jan.grant@bristol.ac.uk) Received: from dirg.bris.ac.uk (dirg.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.102]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333BE43D48 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:34:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jan.grant@bristol.ac.uk) Received: from mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk ([137.222.16.62]) by dirg.bris.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FOX4H-0004xe-5n; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:34:28 +0100 Received: from cse-jg.cse.bris.ac.uk ([137.222.12.37]:60568) by mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.50) id 1FOX4C-0007Am-Cn; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:34:20 +0100 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:34:15 +0100 (BST) From: Jan Grant X-X-Sender: cmjg@tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk To: Tom Grove In-Reply-To: <4429A049.8080100@voidmain.net> Message-ID: <20060329103051.S15367@tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> References: <200603281234.11850.satyam@sklinks.com> <4429A049.8080100@voidmain.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spamassassin: mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -1.4 X-Spam-Level: - Cc: Joseph Vella , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why are so many people using 4.x? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:34:32 -0000 On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Tom Grove wrote: > I would certainly recommend going with 6.x. The reason that many of our > servers still run 4.x is that 5.x got a bad reputation and there really is no > upgrade path from 4.x to 6.x. 5 and 6 default to using UFS2 and 4 uses UFS > so, IMHO it's better to rebuild and taking a few hundred users offline for a > couple of hours whilst this happens isn't fun. > > That's my scenario...I'm sure others have totally different reasons. In addition to Kris' comments about UFS being perfectly viable for 5.x and 6.x: there is an upgrade path, but it's 4.x -> 5.x -> 6.x. FWIW I've done this successfully without a hitch*. jan * Having said that, I use a liveupgrade-a-like setup with a primary / and /usr (that I'm running from) and a secondary (that I rebuild into and reboot into). It means I have something solid to fall back to if the upgrade fails. -- jan grant, ISYS, University of Bristol. http://www.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ That which does not kill us goes straight to our thighs.