From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 18 12:36:53 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E31816A4CE for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:36:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [81.2.69.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD7A43D3F for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:36:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (localhost.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:::1])i6ICaiIS037531 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:36:44 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from matthew@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: (from matthew@localhost)id i6ICain9037530; Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:36:44 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from matthew) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:36:44 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman To: Wojciech Puchar Message-ID: <20040718123644.GB92233@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Seaman , Wojciech Puchar , Robert Huff , questions@freebsd.org References: <1048.216.195.139.40.1090068712.squirrel@new.host.name> <16633.10572.42186.100897@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20040718131456.U63398@chylonia.3miasto.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dTy3Mrz/UPE2dbVg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040718131456.U63398@chylonia.3miasto.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Greylist: Message not sent from an IPv4 address, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.5.3 (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [0.0.0.0]); Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:36:44 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version devel-20040705, clamav-milter version 0.74a on smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk cc: Robert Huff cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: upgrading form 4.2 to 5.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:36:53 -0000 --dTy3Mrz/UPE2dbVg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > Brent Bailey writes: > > > > > The customer is running a file server samba also running apache > > > running FBSD 4.2, he wants to upgrade using cvsup & the make > > > buildworld procedure to upgrade to 5.x. >=20 > why they want an upgrade as 4.2 works fine? >=20 > smells like windows. True. Upgrading just for the sake of it is not sensible. However there are plenty of valid reasons for wanting to upgrade: - Security Advisories: often these will be backported to earlier versions, but the only versions where patches will definitely be provided are the versions listed as 'supported' on http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html Generally any release will be supported for a year from release, but there are exceptions. For instance, 4.8-RELEASE was recently announced to have an extended support period which means that it will be covered for longer than 4.9-RELEASE and about as long as 4.10-RELEASE, and the earlier developer preview 5.x-RELEASEs weren't supported beyond the next DP release. - Ports: These are only really guaranteed to work on the latest 4.x or 5.x release, as limited resources mean that those are the only OS versions where packages can be built en mass. While porters will not gratuitously break compatability with earlier system versions, sometimes this will happen. New features and bug fixes in the compiler tool chain, make(1), the pkg_foo tools and so forth can also break compatability with earlier versions. - Hardware support: 4.2-RELEASE came out in November 2000. The rate of change in computer hardware since then has been very large. Should one of those servers bite the dust, it's quite possible that 4.2-RELEASE wouldn't support the hardware available on a replacement system. Better to do an upgrade calmly and carefully and without undue pressure rather than having to rush it through to get a replacement system back into production as soon as possible. Now, the question of having to upgrade all the way to 5.x, and requiring that the upgrade is done "in place" by the usual {build,install}{world,kernel} mechanism is a different matter. My advice would be to avoid that as likely to cause more trouble than it really warrants. The best mechanism for doing this sort of thing is to start with a spare system, do a clean install of whatever OS version is chosen (sizing all of the partitions etc. according to the experience gained with the older systems) and build and configure all of the required software from scratch. This will allow you to run the new system in parallel with the old for testing purposes, and gives you an easy route to back out the upgrade should it cause problems. The procedure would be to upgrade each system this manner, and use each old set of hardware as the spare to build the replacement for the next system in turn. =20 Cheers, Matthew =20 --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK --dTy3Mrz/UPE2dbVg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA+m7ciD657aJF7eIRAqoeAJ9tX/etthL6C+yNinIzJNqsBVeOSwCfRirX La8itLAlaLBhgDmvJ8+NFXU= =Gbyj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dTy3Mrz/UPE2dbVg--