From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 11 18:50:33 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 1041716A4CE for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:50:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA48843D1D for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:50:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5BInO4n071374; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:49:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i5BInOh4071371; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:49:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:49:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: "Marc G. Fournier" In-Reply-To: <20040611151630.P909@ganymede.hub.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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 18:50:33 -0000 On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > 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? I can't speak specifically to unionfs, but I can speak generally to 5.x. It's not yet "-STABLE" -- many people are using it in production, but they're using it (hopefully) with the knowledge that we're still actively working in areas that produce intermittent instability and disruption. We're also actively working on performance: in some areas, the performance of 5.x is still substantially more poor that 4.x (in others, it's a lot faster). For at least the next month or two, I would expect to users for 5.x (as opposed to 5.2.1) to be aware that they will want to read freebsd-current carefully to avoid disruption, and expect nits (that we'll work to sort out as quickly as we can). Not everyone will have problems, and if you're careful to pick update dates carefully, you might well find it runs very well for you. However, it is -CURRENT still! Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research