From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 8 16:08:07 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 1F44E16A41C for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:08:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fcash@ocis.net) Received: from imap.sd73.bc.ca (smtp.sd73.bc.ca [142.24.13.149]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E7B43D48 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:08:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fcash@ocis.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D5618CC81 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap.sd73.bc.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailtest.sd73.bc.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 53533-01-42 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s9.sbo (s9.sbo [192.168.0.9]) by imap.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8659A18CCA9 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:08:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Freddie Cash To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:08:01 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <20050608001306.3FB1F43D5C@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <42A6C7CE.9000002@incubus.de> In-Reply-To: <42A6C7CE.9000002@incubus.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506080908.02478.fcash@ocis.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at sd73.bc.ca Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable? 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: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:08:07 -0000 On June 8, 2005 03:26 am, Matthias Buelow wrote: > David Hogan wrote: > > In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a > > serious kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a > > preinstalled driver or a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this > > holds true for FreeBSD? I > If that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be careless to migrate > now. If it works, why change it? > My experience with the 5.x tree so far is that it's ok for a SOHO or > private environment but I wouldn't trust it if my money (or job) > depended on it. Maybe in a year, or two but not now. We depend on it everyday without problems. Our mail servers, spam / virus filters, firewalls, web servers, proxy servers, and Samba servers all run FreeBSD 5.3 and 5.4. We have servers in each of the secondary schools, the admin buildings, and the elementary schools. Some of these are high-end dual-Opteron systems with 4 GB of RAM. Others are dual-AthlonMP systems with 4 GB RAM. The lowest-end are P2 333MHz systems (firewalls). None of the servers are name-brand, top-tier servers, they're all generic 1U, 2U, and tower systems built by local suppliers to our specifications. The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's not an issue any more). I trust my job to FreeBSD (even runs on my laptop), and it handles just about everything for the school district, right down to storing accounting and personnel files. Works beautifully, for our needs. -- Freddie Cash fcash@ocis.net