From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 21 12:14:35 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 BE87616A41F
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:14:35 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from nicklas@dinpris.no)
Received: from dp-mail-01.dinpris.com (dp-mail-01.dinpris.com [62.73.247.20])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 205B943D7B
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:14:17 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from nicklas@dinpris.no)
Received: (qmail 96229 invoked by uid 1004); 21 Jul 2005 12:20:05 -0000
Received: from 62.73.247.155 by dp-mail-01.dinpris.com (envelope-from
	<nicklas@dinpris.no>, uid 98) with qmail-scanner-1.25 
	(clamdscan: 0.86.1/984. spamassassin: 3.0.4. perlscan: 1.25.  
	Clear:RC:1(62.73.247.155):. 
	Processed in 0.050815 secs); 21 Jul 2005 12:20:05 -0000
X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: nicklas@dinpris.no via dp-mail-01.dinpris.com
X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.25 (Clear:RC:1(62.73.247.155):. Processed in 0.050815 secs)
Received: from 529c-tbg7-5fl.oslo.dinpris.com (HELO ?62.73.247.155?)
	(nicklas@dinpris.no@62.73.247.155)
	by dp-mail-01.dinpris.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2005 12:20:04 -0000
Message-ID: <42DF9187.3060000@dinpris.no>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:13:59 +0200
From: "Nicklas B. Westerlund" <nicklas@dinpris.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl>
References: <1121917413.4895.47.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<20050721113927.T97888@fledge.watson.org>
	<20050721113737.GB52753@stack.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20050721113737.GB52753@stack.nl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alexey Yakimovich <aiy@ferens.net>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>,
	freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Quality of FreeBSD
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:14:35 -0000

Marc Olzheim wrote:

>
>but I'd like a clear answer on
>what to do now in regard to taking FreeBSD 5 into 'real' production...
>
>  
>

I'd have to second this request.  We rely heavily on the stability and
performance of FreeBSD in our business.
We've only had the occasional stupid hang on our RELENG_5_4 systems, but
I've deployed both RELENG_6
and -CURRENT in our labs now to see what kind of results I can get out
of it.

Although I havn't seen any major problems on our servers, all using u320
scsi and smp - I don't feel as secure about my choice of upgrading to 5.x.
We still have some 4.x servers in production, and judging by how this is
evolving, I think I'll rather skip the 5-branch for those machines and
keep testing 6.x.
The last thing we need is servers with problems to disturb our sleep at
night.

Overall I think we're a few of the lucky ones, as alot of people seem to
have huge problems which we havn't encountered, again that is because of
different architectures and such.

Nick.