From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 14 17:05:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C9F16A41C for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:05:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C4C43D53 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:05:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE04664BBBC for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:05:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11178-04 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:05:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-224-176-51.eastlink.ca [24.224.176.51]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674C964BB6A for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:05:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B81237DDF; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:05:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187C83449A for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:05:06 -0300 (ADT) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:05:06 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050614135828.M90456@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org Subject: New Server - To 5.x or Not To 5.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:05:07 -0000 I've been running FreeBSD 4.x for eons now, mainly because of the fact that she's "known" in our environment ... UNIONFS isn't perfect, but all of the obvious/major bugs have been worked out of her, etc ... but, she's also a dead branch, so any outstanding bugs, nobody is interested in fixing them, let alone having reported ... I'm just in the process of putting together a new server, and based on some stuff I've heard recently concerning work that has been done on UNIONFS, I'm tempted to put 5.x onto this new server, to start bringing my servers into the 'current age' ... Is there anyone out there using 5-STABLE and UNIONFS that are happy with it, or is it still very problematic? Again, the key thing right now for me is UNIONFS, so I'm looking mainly for feedback from ppl that *are* using it, not just reading the end of the man page ... Thanks ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664