Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:44:06 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <7B79C3A3998654916BC4E4EE@utd65257.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <200806051422.00836.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <200806051023.56065.jhb@freebsd.org> <CE0D857CF3C54017B29052F0@utd65257.utdallas.edu> <200806051422.00836.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Thursday, June 05, 2008 14:22:00 -0400 John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > I find that bce(4) is far more reliable in 6.3 than 6.1 for us. There have > been several fixes (esp. for higher loads, and mostly in 6.2) to this driver. > There are known panics in earlier 6.x that are fixed in 6.3 for certain with > this driver. > Thanks. Knowing that gives me a lot more confidence to go ahead and build a new kernel for that server. > In general though, you don't know which bugs are fixed and if any regressions > are present w/o testing the code. If you have production systems then > hopefully you have QA systems for development, etc. and you can either reuse > those when app QA isn't active for OS QA or you can get dedicated boxes for > OS QA. Even if you used a commercial OS with a support contract you would > need to do the same. Again, that would be nice, but **just like FreeBSD** this is an all volunteer project where both time and money are at a premium. If I had a dollar for every time my wife complained about me using my valuable free time to support this site without any compensation, I could probably afford a test bed. :-) -- Paul Schmehl As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7B79C3A3998654916BC4E4EE>