Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:47:05 +0100 (IST) From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> To: Kiril Mitev <kiril@ideaglobal.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Stability and versions - was Re: Let 3.x die ASAP? Message-ID: <XFMail.000330214705.steveo@eircom.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 30-Mar-00 Kiril Mitev wrote:
>> In other words "do not use anything newer than 2.2 if you
>> worry about stability"...
In other words "If 4-stable isn't stable enough for you try 3-stable, if
that isn't then try 2-stable". Noting that the original poster had done the
first two.
>> In other words "nothing in FreeBSD has improved stability
>> since 2.2"
>
That first reply of mine was a bit hasty (perhaps). So pehaps a view
from the edge is in order (perhaps not in which case my apologies). Maybe some
of this verbiage is suitable for a FAQ entry about what -stable means and what
to expect from various stages of a development cycle.
It may very well be the case that 2.2-stable is currently the most
stable FreeBSD around, the main reason for this is that for quite some
time now it has been getting _only_ bug and security fixes (IIRC only the
latter for some time). It has also been in use for a long time so there has
been plenty of opportunity to diagnose and fix problems. By comparison 3-stable
is full of new(ish) features and support for newer hardware. It has been around
a while and may be approaching or even beating 2.2-stable in stability by now,
or it may never do so. It should reach it's peak of stability soon as it enters
the 'maintenance updates only' phase. 4-stable on the other hand is fresh from
the bleeding edge (via feature freeze, code freeze and beta test) and has only
just begun it's journey to (ultimate) stability.
If you really want to compare the stability of 2.2-stable and 3-stable
you should either wait until 3-stable hits maintenance (after 3.5) or (maybe
bogus) compare 2.0, 2.1.0, 2.2.0, 3.0 and 4.0. FWIW 1.1.5.1 was I think the most
stable until well into the 2.1's but 2.2-stable leaves it standing on all
counts. It might be interesting to see how 1.1.5.1 fares on some of the quirkier
laptops around :)
One of the great strengths of FreeBSD has always been the respect with
which the committers treat the -stable line. I cannot recall ever seeing an
X-stable going backwards in quality, discounting a very few really short lived
breakages only visible to those who cvsup at the wrong time (and readers of
this list who get told about it - a lot).
It is also worth considering that stability is a variable thing. A
system that is rock solid under one pattern of loading may start to fail badly
when called upon to do something new that exposes an untriggered bug or hits a
previously unnoticed limit. Consider that all those who had stability
problems under 2.2-stable have long since stopped running 2.2-stable on that
hardware (they may be running 3.x or 4.x or Linux or NT or new hardware or
...). The remaining 2.2-stable systems are running on hardware that is proven
to be a good match to the OS.
Finally if 3-stable or 4-stable crashes on hardware that ran 2-stable
for years consider that the hardware and firmware is very old and the newer code
hasn't had much testing against hardware and firmware that old some of which
may have unexpected quirks not affecting the older code. Not so much a
stability problem as a compatability problem or even a new intolerance to off
spec hardware/firmware problem. It may also be a bug in the newer code.
PS: I am just a user, my opinions have only their own weight to carry them.
PPS: Personally I find 4-stable to be quite stable enough for my needs.
Thanks and well done to all concerned. (keep doing it).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.000330214705.steveo>