From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Oct 12 14: 8:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from puffer.quadrunner.com (adsl-63-195-0-34.dsl.chic01.pacbell.net [63.195.0.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A30014CE8 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:08:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from manek@quadrunner.com) Received: from after ([10.0.0.34]) by hardknocks.pw2.within.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA00292; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:07:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from manek@quadrunner.com) From: "Sameer R. Manek" To: "Michael Lucas" Cc: Subject: RE: 3.5-stable ? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:06:15 -0700 Message-ID: <000301bf14f5$9efbac20$2200000a@after.pw2.within.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <199910121825.OAA45519@blackhelicopters.org> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Michael Lucas > > > > As far as I know, there aren't any major stability issues w/ 3.2 or 3.3. > > I don't however use NFS and many other things so maybe I've > missed those. > > I think you are probably safe to upgrade, maybe a machine at a time, to > > 3.3. > > Well, in 2.2.5-release we had a nice little note in the release > announcement: > 3.0 had many problems but they've been ironed out for the most part there are some issues with nfs, though I have yet to see them. I'd say 3.3 is stable, setup a test machine, simulate the load enviornment that your current 2.2.x machines encounter. See if it passes your expectations. If it doesn't, post to this mailing list, report what problems you discovered. There are many talented people on this list that can advise you of what you did wrong, or fix the problem itself. I don't think that you should rely on some sort of paper to tell you if something is stable or not. The lack of support for 2.2.x now should be indicitive that most of the developers think that 3.x is stable enough to stop supporting the older product. Many companies have claimed their products to be stable/secure, and I'm sure we can all name a few that a reputation for otherwise. I think a better way to determine stability is to join a mailing list such as this one, see what other users around the world have to say, then you get real world data, from admins, users, from all over the world. Sameer To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message