Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:09:40 +0100 From: <Helge.Oldach@atosorigin.com> To: <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>, <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, <lofi@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support Message-ID: <39AFDF50473FED469B15B6DFF2262F7A0273C975@DEHHX001.deuser.de.intra>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM: >> Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable. >=20 > I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the first > time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases > is well known, but suspecting something just because of the odd or > evenness of it's numbering scheme seems like pure superstition. The odd/even rule is just over-generalization, derived from the Linux = kernel numbering scheme. Personally, I've been upgrading lots of servers from 4-STABLE to = 5-STABLE to 6-STABLE without trouble. Yes, it is some amount of work = (particularly if you want UFS2 benefits and thus have to newfs all = filesystemes), but it is absolutely doable and certainly not a killer = job. Of course upgrading hundreds, even thousands of remote servers is a = different task. But then you want professional support anyway... Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is "unstable". After all, = it's named 6-STABLE for a reason. I'd say from experience that the = reason is perfectly valid. Actually I have two older servers that got = "just stuck" every few weeks with 4-STABLE and 5-STABLE and called for a = hard reboot -- these two have been rock solid ever since they were = upgraded to 6-STABLE. Greets, Helge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39AFDF50473FED469B15B6DFF2262F7A0273C975>