Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:07:33 -0400 From: "Thomas Mueller" <mueller23@insightbb.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> Subject: Re: Which FreeBSD for Intel i7-2600S and DQ67SWB3? Message-ID: <E0.24.28342.5C2B1DF4@smtp01.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Snippet from David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2012-March/239742.html > It looks like -STABLE are daily development/ test builds (?): > ftp://ftp.allbsd.org/pub/FreeBSD-snapshots/amd64-amd64/ > I'm looking for stability. I'll try the 9.0-RELEASE: > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/9.0/ I had a weird problem with 9.0-RELEASE: after updating a NetBSD source tree by "cvs up -dP", the system froze and I needed the Reset button. A couple days later, after better than 24 hours inactivity, I heard sounds of reboot and verified by looking. File system was not cleanly umounted and had to be fsck'ed, which was dome automatically on the reboot. Given my very new hardware, I figured to upgrade to STABLE, building from source. That worked, and the weird problem has not reappeared. I didn't even ask the list for help. I suppose I could also have tried RELENG_9_0, maybe a patch would have fixed the problem, but my very new hardware and new Xorg version in the works led me to go to STABLE. Daily development/test builds sound more like HEAD (=CURRENT) than STABLE. STABLE is more tested than HEAD. I think if I ever try FreeBSD-HEAD, I'd install to a separate partition and keep the STABLE installation intact. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0.24.28342.5C2B1DF4>