From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr  3 12:59:38 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 BB5BE37B405
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  3 Apr 2003 12:59:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from moghedien.mukappabeta.net (moghedien.mukappabeta.net
	[194.145.150.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A938243F3F
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  3 Apr 2003 12:59:32 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mkb@moghedien.mukappabeta.net)
Received: by moghedien.mukappabeta.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id A8CCE2C9B; Thu,  3 Apr 2003 22:59:48 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 22:59:48 +0200
From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de>
To: Bill Moran <billm@craftmfg.com>
Message-ID: <20030403205948.GA4929@moghedien.mukappabeta.net>
References: <002901c2f9f5$e909c2f0$613818ac@craftmfg.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <002901c2f9f5$e909c2f0$613818ac@craftmfg.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 20:59:38 -0000

Bill Moran writes:

>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?

If the system isn't really too critical, I'd go for it.  I'm running
5.0 in workstation use and had some problems with agp and X11 up until
5.0-RELEASE-p7, on which I haven't had a crash or freeze yet and all
seems to be stable.  I'm using scsi and ide on that machine.  Apart
from the agp/graphics/X11 problem and one (I think) related kernel
panic I've experienced with < -p7, I've not seen any problems.  IMHO
it's stable enough for use in a relaxed production environment.  The
more people who engage in testing it, the more problems (also cutting
edges in the userland) get ironed out, and the faster that will
happen.

--mkb