On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Tom Grove wrote: > I would certainly recommend going with 6.x. The reason that many of our > servers still run 4.x is that 5.x got a bad reputation and there really is no > upgrade path from 4.x to 6.x. 5 and 6 default to using UFS2 and 4 uses UFS > so, IMHO it's better to rebuild and taking a few hundred users offline for a > couple of hours whilst this happens isn't fun. > > That's my scenario...I'm sure others have totally different reasons.
In addition to Kris' comments about UFS being perfectly viable for 5.x and 6.x: there is an upgrade path, but it's 4.x -> 5.x -> 6.x. FWIW I've done this successfully without a hitch*. jan * Having said that, I use a liveupgrade-a-like setup with a primary / and /usr (that I'm running from) and a secondary (that I rebuild into and reboot into). It means I have something solid to fall back to if the upgrade fails. -- jan grant, ISYS, University of Bristol. http://www.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ That which does not kill us goes straight to our thighs. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
