Re: How stable is 4.9-RELEASE proving to be?

From: Erick Mechler (emechler_at_techometer.net)
Date: 10/29/03

  • Next message: Russell Sutherland: "Re: ipfw segfaults on 4.9-STABLE (??)" 
    Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:36:07 -0800
To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>

    :: We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE.

    I see you ask this question on a somewhat regular basis about FreeBSD
    4.X-{STABLE,RELEASE). Why not just get a spare system you can put online
    somewhere and do your own burn-in testing? It's going to be much more
    useful than asking thousands of people that (probably) don't have your
    specific hardware combination.

    Cheers - Erick
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Russell Sutherland: "Re: ipfw segfaults on 4.9-STABLE (??)"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3
      ... This whole discussion is really interesting as it clearly showcases two common trends in computing (rapid development vs stability) On the one side we got people who are more interested in development than stabilization of the existing code base. ... They really do not care about "new features", but they do care about maximum stability of the existing code, security, and nonstop business continuity even in the face of natural disasters. ... There are definitely points of conflict along these lines, but much of the time the reason that people use FreeBSD is precisely because there *is* agreement on these points. ... If FreeBSD developers only hung around to do adventurous new feature development, we wouldn't have -STABLE branches, errata/security branches, freebsd-update, and so on. ...
      (freebsd-stable)
    • Re: FreeBSD 5.4: Is it generally unstable?
      ... just reading this mailing list will give you an overly negative ... > view of FreeBSD's stability. ... My experiences are that FreeBSD 5.4 ...
      (freebsd-stable)
    • Re: NEWBIE: guidence for MS-Windows replacement.
      ... the linux discussion belongs, ofcourse, in c.o.l.a. ... Fewest bugs, well, all I'll say about that is that the *BSD camps have ... This contributes to their stability. ... FreeBSD included. ...
      (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
    • Re: quota deadlock on 6.1-RC1
      ... FreeBSD already has many great features which we are happy with, but they need to be refined now. ... Yes, new features are important to stay in the game, but they should not arrive at the sacrifice of stability. ... I.e., cleanups of locking models, removal of long-decayed or no longer useful code, finishing up loose ends, etc. Compared to the new feature lists for the 5.x branch, 6.x and 7.x are significantly less agressive. ...
      (freebsd-stable)
    • Re: ZFS status now in June? / stable enough for a file server?
      ... It would be to store lots of data, and the FS-compression feature of ZFS ... seen any problems regarding stability. ... We are phasing this server into production this afternoon. ... Pawel's work porting zfs to FreeBSD has been a tremendous effort :-) ...
      (freebsd-current)