From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 11 18:34:58 2004 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 3BA2D16A4CE for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:34:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1337A43D1F for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:34:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DF2B7349F3; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:34:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7712345C5 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:34:47 -0300 (ADT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:34:47 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040611151630.P909@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: How much of a risk is 5.x ... ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:34:58 -0000 Several here know of the problems that I've found in the past with 4.x, several of which, through the patient help of alot of ppl on these lists, have been been fixed. Most of the problems have revolved around the unionfs stuff that I use quite heavily. I'm just about to order in a new server, and with the 5-STABLE branch being, more or less, just around the corner, was considering using this new server to start migrating to 5.x ... I run both my desktop, and laptop, on 5.x, and can't say that I've had many problems with it ... but I also don't demand near as much out of those two then I do with the servers themselves. Depending on availability of the hardware itself, I'm looking at end of June, earliest, to get the server online ... and was figuring a slow migration of VMs from the 4.x server -> 5.x, to slowly build up the load, as well as to inconvience as few as possible if it crashes, and needs to be debugged. So, I think the question more or less comes down to whether or not 5.x is to the point where I could be as confident with it as I am with 4-STABLE? Like, I believe that most of the fixes that David and Tor put into 4.x for the unionfs stuff were migrated up to 5.x (or vice versa), but I also know that there are several things I can't do with it under 4.x, nor expect to be able to under 5.x ... but should I expect 5.x's unionfs to be in about the same stable as 4.x? Or in a worse state? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664