From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 30 10:29:40 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8713D16A4B3 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal1.es.net (postal1.es.net [198.128.3.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04A443FBD for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:29:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal1.es.net (Postal Node 1) with ESMTP (SSL) id MUA74016; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:29:30 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 26FDD5D07; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) To: Eriq Lamar In-Reply-To: Message from Eriq Lamar of "Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:52:05 EDT." <200309301152.05556.eqe@cox.net> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:29:30 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20030930172930.26FDD5D07@ptavv.es.net> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is 5.1 now more stable than 4.9rc X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:29:40 -0000 > From: Eriq Lamar > Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:52:05 -0400 > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > It just seems that there are alot of issues w/ 4.9, doesn't seem stable at > all. Yes, but there are a lot of issues in 5.1, too. And some are the same ones. The ATAng issues are hitting both 4.9 and 5.1 about (but not quite) the same way. The PAE issues seem to be resolved in 4.9 and have long since been resolved in 5.1. The sudden reboot syndrome (which is unusual but now does not seem to be rare) looks like a 4.9 issue, but it may be that just not enough people are running 5.1. At least some folks are now managing to get some tracebacks and dumps. 5.1 has a lot of very different issues, but those running it have learned to live with them and work around them. CURRENT is getting pretty stable, but, by its nature, has times of VERY unstable behavior. It's certainly not something to run on a system that you want to be very stable. At least that's my view of it. (I have been running current for about a year, so I may be a bit inured to some of its issues.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634