Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:18:12 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Durham <durham@w2xo.pgh.pa.us> To: Doug Young <dougy@gargoyle.apana.org.au> Cc: "Kruppa, Peter Ulrich" <root@pukruppa.de>, Eric Colburn <ecolburn@seeitfirst.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.3 FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103242055280.391-100000@shazam.int> In-Reply-To: <032301c0b1d5$86d48940$8300a8c0@apana.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Doug Young wrote: > I know a heap of experts will disagree, but by far the best uptimes > I've achieved with FreeBSD have been with an install of some RELEASE > version from CD, & leaving the thing untouched til the next RELEASE. I > used CVSUP in the previous 4.2 box but it proved to be far more > trouble than it was worth so I'm far from convinced that its a good > thing. It should be stated however that I'm talking about relatively > minimal command line systems that don't run much more than apache / > sendmail / cucipop / imap & ntp. > I would agree in general, but I have noticed that the lower numbered releases (lower "minor" release numbers) will be a little less solid than the higher numbered releases. 2.0 was followed almost immediately by 2.1, 3.0 by 3.1, etc. 4.0 had some pccard problems, which were fixed almost immediately in 4.0-STABLE. So, in some cases, going with -STABLE is good. 4.1 seemed to have an issue with the ed and ep drivers, which seems to be fixed in 4.2. I believe it was fixed in 4.1-STABLE and that would have been a reason to go with -STABLE. Higher-numbered releases (.2's, .3's..etc) seem to need less tweeking. I think you have to read the mailing lists and decide if you need to go to -STABLE. -Jim Durham To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0103242055280.391-100000>