Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:19:03 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <13A3FC54-B459-48C5-85CD-14CC38913838@netconsonance.com> In-Reply-To: <20080605003545.GP89632@k7.mavetju> References: <458FE12C-AE4D-48F9-8193-4663079CEEF8@netconsonance.com> <84EBEA5D3A1F47E79E8E12C4CF4D0314@multiplay.co.uk> <FB44670E-6F56-44BE-ADC4-23126420FAD8@netconsonance.com> <20080605003545.GP89632@k7.mavetju>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 4, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > Use the eat-your-own-food approach (while not knowing what the 500 > systems do): Make sure you use the same hardware and software as > what is in production. Upgrade it first, run it for two weeks. If > it doesn't, fallback and see where it went wrong. If it all works > fine after two weeks, roll it out. Edwin, I've been building testbed environments for over 20 years in my professional career. I know a lot more than this basic concept. The costs in our environment for a proper testbed is $20k in hardware and 3000 man hours. That's for a small test of comparable small changes to the existing environment. Why would we take on this cost only to re-document well known and already acknowledged bugs? I mean, really? Not trying to be sarcastic, but do you purchase cars to test them out and see if you can get better gas mileage than the EPA observes? Neither do I ;-) (yes, their testing methodology is flawed but it's a decent enough benchmark to know if you want the vehicle or not) -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13A3FC54-B459-48C5-85CD-14CC38913838>