From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 9 03:52:51 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 D595616A41C for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 03:52:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from v.velox@vvelox.net) Received: from S3.cableone.net (smtp3.cableone.net [24.116.0.229]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1D843D4C for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 03:52:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from v.velox@vvelox.net) Received: from vixen42.local.lan (unverified [24.119.122.41]) by S3.cableone.net (CableOne SMTP Service S3) with ESMTP id 22399048 for multiple; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:01:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:53:45 -0500 From: Vulpes Velox To: Charles Swiger Message-ID: <20050608225345.77cf565c@vixen42.local.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20050608001306.3FB1F43D5C@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <42A6C7CE.9000002@incubus.de> <200506080908.02478.fcash@ocis.net> <42A71AE1.8020300@incubus.de> <6.2.1.2.0.20050608134054.06b8ccb0@64.7.153.2> <42A73293.5000105@incubus.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.11 (GTK+ 2.6.7; i386-portbld-freebsd5.4) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IP-stats: Incoming Last 0, First 22, in=23, out=0, spam=0 X-External-IP: 24.119.122.41 X-Abuse-Info: Send abuse complaints to abuse@cableone.net Cc: FreeBSD Stable Users , Matthias Buelow 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: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 03:52:51 -0000 On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:04:20 -0400 Charles Swiger wrote: > On Jun 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Matthias Buelow wrote: > >> Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was > >> I think > >> was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS > >> do you > >> feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ? > > > > I won't go into the details here; it has crashed and frozen on me > > on several occasions, it behaves badly when you do things it does > > not expect, like pulling a mounted USB stick, > > Yanking a mounted device out from under Unix has always been a no- > no. It would be nice if FreeBSD handled this better, but this > problem falls into the "operator error: don't do that" category. > > > it doesn't have working software RAID (Ok, vinum never worked > > properly but that's a different story), > > This is a valid point-- the migration to 5.x and gvinum has not > been pretty, and there are some gotchas lurking when people try to > deal with multi-terabyte RAID arrays, MBR vs GPT, and so forth. > > However, it's common to find half-decent hardware RAID > functionality on many x86 and AMD64 motherboards, and PCI-based > RAID cards are not very expensive. I'd rather use RAID in hardware > than software, myself, but if you think the current status of > software RAID in 5.x isn't production ready, that strikes me as an > understandable position to hold. > > > and it's performance is sub-par. > > 5.3 and earlier especially have struck me as being noticably > slower than 4.10 or so, but there have been significant > improvements since then, and 5.4 and 4.1x seem to be comparable. > To do better than a broad generalization, however, you really need > to pick some tasks and do real benchmarking to compare what is > really going on. Debugging and ect turned on was what did it on the ones before releng_5_3. There where also some nice commits right after releng_5_3. I noticed a nice jump when the last of debugging was turned off and then again after a few commits hit nearly right after releng_5_3.