Re: is 5.x still too unstable?
From: Martin Jessa (freebsd_at_yazzy.org)
Date: 09/10/03
- Previous message: Scott Lambert: "Re: is 5.x still too unstable?"
- In reply to: Tim Middleton: "is 5.x still too unstable?"
- Next in thread: Gary D. Margiotta: "Re: is 5.x still too unstable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:02:45 +0200 To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Hi.
I moved all our production servers to 5.1.
I've never had problems with any of them.
I have one 5.1 box doing all sorts of things for a small ISP.
It works as vpn server, mail server, web server, router, dns, dhcp, proxy and sql.
So far after 2 months of uptime I didnt even have to touch it.
The only one I did not dare to touch yet is our firewall and internal dns/dhcp server(years of uptime :) ).
Hell, I even run one production box on 5.1-CURRENT and it works great.
I'd say 5.1 works well enough to use it on servers.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:52:34 -0400
Tim Middleton <x@Vex.Net> wrote:
>
> I am hoping to move some of the servers in our ISP to FreeBSD. I have been
> rather hoping 5.2 would be reliable enough, so that we can move to it and
> enjoy all the -CURRENT goodness.
>
> The test server locked up yesterday, during some heavy port building, after
> running for weeks with no problem. (-; I've not gone to investigate the
> cause yet. But it has me nervous. It's been difficult to get FreeBSD accepted
> at all here, so I'm wanting it to make a good impression.
>
> I have run 5 at home since 5.0-Release (currently 20030821 snapshot); and
> while there have been problems now and again with a few builds, once these
> have been solved my system here has been really very stable, which gave me
> hope it would be also OK for work...
>
> So what is the general opinion of those here? Should i play it safe and go
> back to 4.x until 5.x becomes officially "stable". Or do people think that
> for most general purpose stuff 5.x should be generally stable "enough"?
> "Enough" is a bit of a difficult word to define... of course one wants rock
> solid for a server... but one may be able to tolerate some sorts of problems
> as long as they can be sorted out quickly, and things are moving towards
> ultimate stability in the near future. These aren't huge servers (no
> multi-processor)... but moderately busy. Running the usual sorts of things...
> apache, postfix, python, zope, nfs, etc.
>
> I realise my post may be a little premature when I haven't even checked out
> what seems to have taken the test box down yet; but it's been on my mind to
> solicit opinions here before this happened, so... any thoughts or experiences
> running 5x on ISP servers to share out there? Are some snapshots known to be
> better than others? Any tips/tweaks on making 5.x just a little more
> stable---even at the cost of performance---than a default install (like
> disabling acpi, as the first thing).
>
> --
> Tim Middleton | Cain Gang Ltd | A man is rich in proportion to the number of
> x@veX.net | www.Vex.Net | things which he can afford to let alone. HDT
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-isp@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-isp@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Scott Lambert: "Re: is 5.x still too unstable?"
- In reply to: Tim Middleton: "is 5.x still too unstable?"
- Next in thread: Gary D. Margiotta: "Re: is 5.x still too unstable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
