From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 21 09:48:14 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC6116A41A; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:48:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD6F13C467; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:48:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <46F3935D.8090406@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:48:13 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras References: <20070918170558.X79003@tomato.local> <20070919044912.R22958@small> <46F0F1DF.9020508@FreeBSD.org> <46F165B0.8000309@hdk5.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-8-I; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: End-of-life for my amd64 ? 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: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:48:14 -0000 Ivan Voras wrote: > NetOpsCenter wrote: > >> I have been using FreeBSD 7.0 since Jan 8 2007 CURRENT on this box >> which is a desktop for browsing and email with a Dual core AMD CPU >> setup. >> It rocks. >> >> I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current on 2 small mailservers using 3 year old >> hardware and it is rock solid. I believe the FreeBSD team has really >> got their act together on this one. > > Are you using any of the new features in 7.x? SCHED_ULE, ZFS? Because my > only 7.x production server that does crashes daily (luckily it's not a > critical machine) and non-server machines are not far behind. If you're > not using the "new" features, you could just as well run 6.x :) > > I'm actively trying to solve some of these problems, but from my > experience (I do a lot of things that may be considered "experimental", > but mostly userland-side, I run "vanilla" kernels) 7 simply isn't stable > yet. It might be in 7.0, but it's not yet. I use 7.0 on about 70 machines that are extremely heavily loaded, all running ULE, ranging from single through to 8 CPUs, some using ZFS, etc. I don't see these problems you are claiming, so you'll have to do some more detective work. Kris