Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?
From: Peter Jeremy (PeterJeremy_at_optushome.com.au)
Date: 08/20/05
- Previous message: Mark Kirkwood: "Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?"
- In reply to: Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek: "6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?"
- Next in thread: Joel Rees: "[NNOT] Stability on Soekris class h/w? (was Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?)"
- Reply: Joel Rees: "[NNOT] Stability on Soekris class h/w? (was Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:24:06 +1000 To: "Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek" <Frans-Jan@van-Steenbeek.net>
On Fri, 2005-Aug-19 23:42:18 +0200, Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek wrote:
>building. Since we are moving in a few months, we decided to use a HP
>laptop instead (reasonably fast CPU, 512 Megs) since we had a few to
>spare.
>
>The toy is currently set up with FreeBSD 6.0-BETA2, Apache 2.0, MySQL 5.0
>and PHP-5.0 with all the reasonable modules. Everything is compiled from
>ports. No changes to the kernel yet, no world-rebuilding done.
I'd also be extremely loath to bet my company on a laptop running beta
software. As others have pointed out, laptops aren't designed for
this. (Though my old Compaq laptop ran FreeBSD 24x7 for several years
and I only stopped using it because the lid was cracking too badly).
If you're really concerned about noise:
- use an older desktop and maybe even underclock it to keep it cooler
- build your own system. Either go the low power route (mini-ITX) so
you don't need noisy fans or use an over-rated PSU and CPU heatsink
to keep fan speed (and noise) down. In either case, you'll need to
look around to find a quiet HDD.
- [as a completely left-field suggestion] look at something like an
Apple G5 system - large fans running slowly generate very little noise.
At the very least, you need to build a test harness to test the system
under load (and maybe get some friends and/or friendly customers to
hammer it as well). Whilst all the software is derived from a mature
code-base, I'd be surprised if you can't crash it.
>I will post all problems not yet reported to the list, but if anyone of
>you would like to share his or her opinion on this matter, please let me
>know. Will 4.11-RELEASE perhaps be a better choice?
4.x is definitely more mature than 6.x. That said, I'd recommend
against deploying 4.x in a new system because it is a dead end -
you'll need to migrate off it at some point and that's far easier to
do before a system goes live. You made the point that you support for
newer hardware is better in newer releases. Why not use 5.4? As you
point out, you are more familiar with it. And, once 6.x does become
more stable, moving from 5.x to 6.x will be far easier than moving
from 4.x to 6.x.
-- Peter Jeremy _______________________________________________ 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"
- Previous message: Mark Kirkwood: "Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?"
- In reply to: Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek: "6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?"
- Next in thread: Joel Rees: "[NNOT] Stability on Soekris class h/w? (was Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?)"
- Reply: Joel Rees: "[NNOT] Stability on Soekris class h/w? (was Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
