Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:50:33 -0500 From: "Matthew Emmerton" <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> To: "Bill Moran" <billm@craftmfg.com>, <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Overall "feel" for the stability of FreeBSD 5 Message-ID: <003b01c2fa01$257ac7b0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> References: <002901c2f9f5$e909c2f0$613818ac@craftmfg.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Moran" <billm@craftmfg.com> To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: Overall "feel" for the stability of FreeBSD 5 > I'm considering setting up a FreeBSD 5 machine as a dedicated > backup/archive computer on a network I administer. > > I'm curious to hear some opinions on how wise this is. I know > that 5 is still in a -CURRENT status and I've seen (and repeated) > the warnings that it's not really production quality yet. > > So I'm curious as to a number of facets of its capibilities: > 1) With the current developmet effort ... does it seem like 5.1 > will be -STABLE ... or do folks feel that a -STABLE brand > is further off (5.2?) > 2) For a dedicated backup server, that can tolerate the > performance problems that folks have been reporting, and > won't upset the entire office if it panics on occasion, is 5 > good enough at this point? > > I know this is inviting a lot of opinion and conjecture ... but I need > some idea of where I can go with this. These folks need a solution > soon, and I don't want to pass on something that's not ready yet. > On the flip side, the nature of the beast means that it doesn't NEED > to be a reliable as I normally expect a FreeBSD server to be, so > there's a little more tolerance than usual. > > Any input is greatly appreciated. What's wrong with 4.8-RELEASE? -- Matt Emmerton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003b01c2fa01$257ac7b0$1200a8c0>