Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:18:32 +0100 (CET) From: "David Meier" <meier@logmail.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: How "safe" is 5.2 to use? Message-ID: <64287.195.141.214.38.1073992712.squirrel@hiwatt.lognet.ch>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello list, I am relatively new to the world of FreeBSD. But first, congrats to the new release! I am somewhat insecure on how trustfully I can use the new release for my intended use (and I hope my questions haven't been posted a zillion times before). Therefore I hope the FreeBSD nuts can advise me whether to go for 4.9 or 5.2. The setup: hardware: DELL PowerEdge 1750 (Dual XEON, 2GB RAM, RAID 1). web server: Apache 2.0, MySQL 4.0, PHP 4.3.4, Perl 5.8 mail server: Postfix, Cyrus IMAPd, Cyrus SASL, Amavis-new, SpamAssassin, ClamAV The servers will be used for virtual hosting as a small ISP evironment and housed about 30min from where I work (in case I have to reset them...). I don't know how and if the instability risks may affect such a setup of services on the hardware described. Unfortunately, the advisories are kept in pretty general language, however, I know it is hard to predict how it will be running on a particular system. I just don't know FreeBSD well enough to have a 'feel' about it (although I don't rely too much on 'feelings' in the world of computers). Is upgrading to 5.2 comparable to, say, I upgrade from RedHat 9 to RedHat's newest release? What I like about the 5.x releases is the possibility of taking file system snapshots, for example to back up the mailboxes. Thanks for all input. Dave.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?64287.195.141.214.38.1073992712.squirrel>