From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 11 21:37:12 2005 Return-Path: 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 5864316A4CE for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:37:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from top.daemonsecurity.com (FW-182-254.go.retevision.es [62.174.254.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49E743D3F for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:37:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from norgaard@locolomo.org) Received: from [192.168.0.32] (charm.daemonsecurity.com [192.168.0.32]) by top.daemonsecurity.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790A7FD024; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:37:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <41E44705.9070107@locolomo.org> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:37:09 +0100 From: Erik Norgaard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20041114 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, da, it, es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schmehl References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which OS should we use? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:37:12 -0000 Paul Schmehl wrote: > We're getting ready to create some new servers from scratch > (format/install). We've been using 4.9 and 4.10 for a while now with no > problems. We've got one 5.3 box setup for test purposes. > > On this list I have seen comments about instability issues in 5.3. > These servers need to be stable. Should we install 4.10/11? Or move up > to 5.3? While there are ongoing discussions on how long 4.x will be supported and when/if 5.x is mature for production, there is no doubt that at some point, 4.x will no longer be supported and 5.x will be _the_ production release. For this reason, you should consider the extra work involved in later upgrading to 5.x, the recommended way is a complete reinstall which will lead to downtime. Apart from stability, you should also consider if 5.x provides specific features you need or want which are not supported under 4.x, or support for specific hardware. Considering this, I'd recommend 5.x. I have not found it more unstable or worse performing than 4.x, but ofcourse, could be that I'm just not stressing the system enough. Cheers, Erik -- Ph: +34.666334818 web: www.locolomo.org S/MIME Certificate: http://www.locolomo.org/crt/2004071206.crt Subject ID: A9:76:7A:ED:06:95:2B:8D:48:97:CE:F2:3F:42:C8:F2:22:DE:4C:B9 Fingerprint: 4A:E8:63:38:46:F6:9A:5D:B4:DC:29:41:3F:62:D3:0A:73:25:67:C2