From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 18:44:06 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8FD106566B for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:44:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=pschmehl_lists=0350784f4@tx.rr.com) Received: from ip-relay-002.utdallas.edu (ip-relay-002.utdallas.edu [129.110.20.112]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513588FC14 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:44:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=pschmehl_lists=0350784f4@tx.rr.com) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,597,1204524000"; d="scan'208";a="1002553" Received: from smtp3.utdallas.edu ([129.110.20.110]) by ip-relay-002.utdallas.edu with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2008 13:44:05 -0500 Received: from utd65257.utdallas.edu (utd65257.utdallas.edu [129.110.3.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D35D23DE8 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:44:06 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:44:06 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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> <200806051422.00836.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Linux/x86) X-Munged-Reply-To: Figure it out MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Paul Schmehl List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:44:06 -0000 --On Thursday, June 05, 2008 14:22:00 -0400 John Baldwin 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.