Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:32:54 +0200 From: Pieter de Goeje <pieter@degoeje.nl> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Andriy Bakay <andriy@irbisnet.com>, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>, Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> Subject: Re: Serious zfs slowdown when mixed with another file system (ufs/msdosfs/etc.). Message-ID: <201010100332.54731.pieter@degoeje.nl> In-Reply-To: <169A4F62-0509-4AE9-A4A5-F9CADD08140D@irbisnet.com> References: <E1P49vP-000NDI-Ah@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> <169A4F62-0509-4AE9-A4A5-F9CADD08140D@irbisnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 09 October 2010 16:55:35 Andriy Bakay wrote: > Do you know any more convenient way (except make buildword, etc.) to > upgrade/update several boxes to STABLE on regular basis? Something like > freebsd-update or maybe some process, tips, tricks, etc? > > Thanks. Here's how I do it: 1) Build server: make buildworld && make buildkernel 2) Other servers: export / via NFS Repeat for each other server on build server: mount boxN:/ /mnt make installkernel DESTDIR=/mnt -DNO_FSCHG make installworld DESTDIR=/mnt -DNO_FSCHG umount /mnt Note that I use a single filesystem for / and /usr. Obviously if those are separate filesystems more NFS exports and mount commands are necessary. Before the first run all immutable flags need to be removed from the target box, otherwise the install will fail (i.e. chflags -R noschg /). > > On 2010-10-08, at 6:11, Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> wrote: > >> Ok. But how stable (production ready) the FreeBSD-8-STABLE is? What is > >> your opinion? > > > > I am running 8-STABLE from 27th September on all our ptoduction > > machines (from webservers to database servers to the company mail > > server) and it is fine. I am going to update again over the next > > few days, as there are some ZFS fixes in which I want - and which > > may benifit you too - so I will be able to report back next > > week as to how a more recent version behaves. > > > > In general though, I have never had problems running STABLE on > > prodyction systems over the years. Of course what I do is to test it > > on a singlre machine before rolling it out (a leaf in a webfarm > > so if it goes down it wont affect the business) but it is usually > > fine. keep an eye on -STABLE mailing list though, as that is where > > problems arise. I watch that, and also the dailing commits, either here > > > > http://www.freshbsd.org/?branch=RELENG_8&project=freebsd&committer=&modul > >e=&q= > > > > or here > > > > http://www.secnetix.de/olli/FreeBSD/svnews/?p=stable/8 > > > > Just to see whats going into the tree relative to whats being discussed. > > It only takes a few minutes a dat to monitor the mailin lists and the > > commits, and the result is that we've been running STABLE for a very > > long time (close to a decade I suspect) with great success. > > > > -pete. > > _______________________________________________ > 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" -- Pieter de Goeje
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201010100332.54731.pieter>