From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 12 21:46:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11AAB37B401 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adsl-63-194-196-21.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (adsl-63-194-196-21.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.194.196.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D91043FB1 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:46:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from steve@adsl-63-194-196-21.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) Received: from adsl-63-194-196-21.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])ESMTP id h3D4kRve040707; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:46:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from steve@adsl-63-194-196-21.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) Received: (from steve@localhost)id h3D4kQVQ040706; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:46:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from steve) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:46:25 -0700 From: Steve Sizemore To: Bill Moran Message-ID: <20030413044625.GB40422@math.berkeley.edu> References: <002901c2f9f5$e909c2f0$613818ac@craftmfg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002901c2f9f5$e909c2f0$613818ac@craftmfg.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Overall "feel" for the stability of FreeBSD 5 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Steve Sizemore List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 04:46:33 -0000 On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:30:09AM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated > backup/archive computer on a network I administer. > > I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know > that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated) > the warnings that it's not really production quality yet. > > So I'm curious as to a number of facets of its capibilities: > 1) With the current developmet effort ... does it seem like 5.1 > will be -STABLE ... or do folks feel that a -STABLE brand > is further off (5.2?) > 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the > performance problems that folks have been reporting, and > won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 > good enough at this point? I've been running RELENG_5_0 on a production server since January, and it's working fine. (It's our backup server - amanda - among other things.) It wasn't my first choice; I really wanted to run RELENG_4_7, but that didn't support the RAID controller. At this point, I could downgrade to 4.8, but there are a couple of other features I'd have to give up. Even though it makes me nervous to run a version not on the secure branch, I'm going to stick with it until there is a stable branch, or until I run into a problem. So far, I have not. (Performance hasn't been an issue for me.) I haven't had a single panic. Steve -- Steve Sizemore , (510) 642-8570 Unix System Manager Dept. of Mathematics and College of Letters and Science University of California, Berkeley