From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 3 11:05:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD4E37B401 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts15.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D40143FA3 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:05:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from matt@gsicomp.on.ca) Received: from gabby.gsicomp.on.ca ([65.95.176.5]) by tomts17-srv.bellnexxia.netESMTP <20030403165222.QIEY2665.tomts17-srv.bellnexxia.net@gabby.gsicomp.on.ca>; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:52:22 -0500 Received: from hermes (hermes.gsicomp.on.ca [192.168.0.18]) by gabby.gsicomp.on.ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h33GnJiG046397; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:49:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from matt@gsicomp.on.ca) Message-ID: <003b01c2fa01$257ac7b0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> From: "Matthew Emmerton" To: "Bill Moran" , References: <002901c2f9f5$e909c2f0$613818ac@craftmfg.com> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:50:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: Re: Overall "feel" for the stability of FreeBSD 5 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 19:05:37 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Moran" To: Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: Overall "feel" for the stability of FreeBSD 5 > I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated > backup/archive computer on a network I administer. > > I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know > that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated) > the warnings that it's not really production quality yet. > > So I'm curious as to a number of facets of its capibilities: > 1) With the current developmet effort ... does it seem like 5.1 > will be -STABLE ... or do folks feel that a -STABLE brand > is further off (5.2?) > 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the > performance problems that folks have been reporting, and > won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 > good enough at this point? > > I know this is inviting a lot of opinion and conjecture ... but I need > some idea of where I can go with this. These folks need a solution > soon, and I don't want to pass on something that's not ready yet. > On the flip side, the nature of the beast means that it doesn't NEED > to be a reliable as I normally expect a FreeBSD server to be, so > there's a little more tolerance than usual. > > Any input is greatly appreciated. What's wrong with 4.8-RELEASE? -- Matt Emmerton