From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 24 08:42:25 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2345316A419 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:42:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byshenknet@byshenk.net) Received: from core.byshenk.net (core.byshenk.net [62.58.73.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9D413C494 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:42:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byshenknet@byshenk.net) Received: from core.byshenk.net (localhost.aoes.com [127.0.0.1]) by core.byshenk.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l9O8JHwR073063; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:19:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from byshenknet@core.byshenk.net) Received: (from byshenknet@localhost) by core.byshenk.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l9O8JHpN073062; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:19:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from byshenknet) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:19:17 +0200 From: Greg Byshenk To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20071024081916.GJ91307@core.byshenk.net> References: <471E3620.306@mail.ru> <471E62CB.3020902@intersonic.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <471E62CB.3020902@intersonic.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on core.byshenk.net Cc: rihad Subject: Re: 7.0-BETA1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:42:25 -0000 On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:08:27PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > rihad wrote: > >How risky is it to start using 7.0-BETA1 in production, with the > >intention of upgrading to release as soon as possible? Thanks. > We've used 7-CURRENT since January on a couple of production boxes and > had very few disasters, well, none, but a couple of issues. > "Risky" is a relative term really, but if you ask me I'd say the "risk" > is rather low. > But: TEST FIRST! I concur with Per. I've been running 7-CURRENT on a couple of "production" machines for some months, without any serious problems -- but these are not mission-critical machines. Risk is a relative thing, and it is relative to both the risk of failure and the cost of that failure should it occur. I have 7- running on one fileserver that is used only by our IT group (for online copies of distfiles and other installable software), meaning that if something should go horribly wrong, it would be an annoyance, but not a disaster. The same could _not_ be said about our central user fileservers, and so they do not run 7-. I could also note that I've been running 7-CURRENT on my own workstation (including X, but only fvwm2 and nothing too fancy) for about 6 months, and have experienced no serious problems (though I have swapped out SCHED_4BSD for SCHED_ULE due to poor interactivity with 4BSD). And I also emphasise: TEST FIRST! My situation is not the same as yours, and something that works fine in my environment may break horribly in yours. -- greg byshenk - gbyshenk@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL