Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:26:13 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How much of a risk is 5.x ... ? Message-ID: <20040611162246.B909@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040611144405.66561C-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040611144405.66561C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Robert Watson wrote: > > 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! To the above ... that, to the grief of some around me, has never been a big issue ... even with 4-STABLE, I've always expected those "periods of instability and disruption" that have happened. But, based on the above, especially the comment about performance, I think I'll hold off the bit longer, and make it 'the next server' to give that a bit longer to sort itself out ... Thanks ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040611162246.B909>