Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 03:36:52 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@bitbox.follo.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How good are intermediate versions Message-ID: <199705050136.DAA20847@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: Brett Glass's message of Sun, 04 May 1997 17:21:00 -0600 References: <3.0.1.32.19970504172100.006ee1d0@lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'm working with a lightly-loaded machine that's used primarily for > networking tasks. It does a little Web service and some PPP via "dumb" > UARTs. It has an EISA motherboard and an Adaptec EISA SCSI Twin host > adapter. (I'm not sure which chips it uses, but they might be the ones with > which Justin was having some headaches.) > > The machine is still running 2.1.5, with patches to close security holes. I > am considering upgrading it to either: > > a) 2.2.1-R; > b) The 4/22/97 snapshot of the 2.2 "RELENG" branch > (Why isn't it called something like 2.2.5-SNAP?); or > c) The 5/2/97 snapshot of 3.0-current. > > Which would work best, given the model of SCSI adapter and the stability of > the various releases? Probably the 2.2-970422-RELENG snapshot. I'm fairly certain that 2.2.1 have problems with your Adaptec card, and the 3.0-970502-SNAP lack at least the divert functionality, as well as being on a bleeding edge branch. BTW: Please help stamp out illogical date-formats - you were lucky that you included the 2.2 releng date above, or I wouldn't have known what dates you were referring to. Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705050136.DAA20847>