Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:41:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Andy <deimos@lewman.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.5 now available . . . . . Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006291836210.6712-100000@lowrider.lewman.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006291247410.9243-100000@dt052n3e.san.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > > Not to start a massive flamewar here, but in my personal > > experience with multiple FreeBSD boxes in a live environment, I've found > > that 3.x is much more stable than the 4.x servers. I've gone so far as to > > revert the 4.x server back to 3.x. I'm going to revisit the issue when it > > becomes 4.1. > > It's a pretty safe bet that your problems won't have been fixed if > you didn't tell anyone about them. The problems have already been submitted by others, kernel panics after 3.4 --> 4.0 upgrades, netgear PCI nic flakiness, and possible data corruption with DMA enabled ATA/66 drives. I don't remember the PR's off the top of my head, but I don't see the point in re-submitting known PRs. The problems could be hardware/firmware incompatibility or true 4.x bugs. I know that when I tried to go to 4.x, the system was much less stable. Going back to 3.x allows me to run the boxes, so I'll stick with 3.x until 4.1 comes out. I'll try again then. I can't point to any one thing that "broke stuff". And honestly, I don't have the time to debug it. It didn't work, I went back to what worked. Is that so bad? -- | Andy | e-mail | web | | | andy@lewman.com | www.lewman.com | Philadelphia is not dull -- it just seems so because it is next to exciting Camden, New Jersey. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" 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.4.21.0006291836210.6712-100000>