On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:59:34PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never > >was. > > Why do people continue to say this? Many sites have used, are still > using, and plan to continue to use, 5.x in production.
I'm going to copy a bit of mail that I sent to someone privately. FreeBSD 4.11 can survive a simple burn-in test. FreeBSD 5.X and 6.1 can not. Here's what I wrote earlier. Take a server. Configure for SMP, add quotas within jails and basic IPFW protection with a few hundred dummynet pipes for b/w throttling (less than 10,000 total IPFW lines). Load the machine a bit so that it constantly maintains a 3 digit load and run sufficient active processes to keep it in moderate swap state. The result of that minimal-effort test yields machines which can not maintain 30 days of uptime (most fail in under a week). And don't even THINK about snapshots in 6.1 or earlier. >THAT< is why people who run servers, with jails, quotas, ipfw and moderate load keep complaining about 5.X and 6.1 and begging for 4.11 support to be extended. Just because someone has a few FreeBSD boxes running light loads and not using the features that we NEED does not mean that any the port 4.11 releases to date are stable. /\/\ \/\/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
