From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 10 14:19:03 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A428316A4DA for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lambertfam.org (www.lambertfam.org [216.223.208.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E5243FE5 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:19:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lambert@lambertfam.org) Received: from laptop.lambertfam.org (laptop.int.lambertfam.org [10.1.0.2]) by mail.lambertfam.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635F834D2B for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by laptop.lambertfam.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 55F4F87C0; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:18:52 -0400 From: Scott Lambert To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030910211852.GA16992@laptop.lambertfam.org> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org References: <200309101652.34637.x@Vex.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200309101652.34637.x@Vex.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: is 5.x still too unstable? X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:19:03 -0000 On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:52:34PM -0400, Tim Middleton wrote: > > I am hoping to move some of the servers in our ISP to FreeBSD. I have been > rather hoping 5.2 would be reliable enough, so that we can move to it and > enjoy all the -CURRENT goodness. > > what seems to have taken the test box down yet; but it's been on my mind to > solicit opinions here before this happened, so... any thoughts or experiences > running 5x on ISP servers to share out there? Are some snapshots known to be > better than others? Any tips/tweaks on making 5.x just a little more > stable---even at the cost of performance---than a default install (like > disabling acpi, as the first thing). I have my workstation and one not so critical server on 5.x. While they tend to run fine most of the time, there is a performance penalty even with all the debug knobs turned off. Buildworld will probably always take longer of 5.x but on my system, I went from a 35 minute buildworld on 4.x to a 122 minute buildworld on 5.x My kernel builds (including modules) are now about 31 minutes. Also, since it is still -CURRENT, the developers tend to still be ripping out entire subsystems and replacing them with brand new code. I would say, you don't want to consider going to 5.x on production servers at least until 5.2 is -RELEASE. Move your workstations to 5.x now if you want. I'll wait a while after 5.2 to see what is happening development-wise to get a feel for whether or not the codebase has stablized enough to consider taking the production boxes there. I am in no rush to abandon 4.x. -- Scott Lambert KC5MLE Unix SysAdmin lambert@lambertfam.org