Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

FreeBSD 4.9 Stability Update 117

Posted by michael from the solid-as-a-rock dept.
Dan writes "FreeBSD Release Engineering Team's Scott Long would like to get a new poll on the stability and readiness of 4.9. The belief is that the last of the PAE-induced instability was resolved on August 31. Is anyone still experiencing unusual crashes, corruption, etc, on a system that is running with up-to-date sources? Now is the time to speak up and get the problems resolved. Scott is also requesting help with testing. In response to this, we are adding our own poll. Please vote and add comments as appropriate to help Scott."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 4.9 Stability Update More

FreeBSD 4.9 Stability Update

Comments Filter:

  • What instability? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by __past__ ( 542467 )
    I'm running 4-STABLE on two servers, and 5.1 on some workstations, but I didn't notice any stability problems yet (and the STABLE boxes do identify themselves as 4.9-PRERELEASE, so I guess they should be affected). What is the problem?

    The PAE manpage says it's about having more than 4GB of memory. What does that have to do with USB support? If there are known problems, do they affect systems with < 4GB? Pointers to PRs and mailing lists appreciated.

    • Re:What instability? (Score:5, Informative)

      by questionlp ( 58365 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @01:36PM (#7006422) Homepage
      Drivers and applications can run into some issues with the way memory is windowed and accessed via PAE. It could be that the drivers that have issues access memory in a way that isn't too friendly to PAE or things are hardcoded so that they could end up with memory violations.

      It's kind of like making drivers work properly in non-SMP and SMP mode, mostly how interrupts are handled. It can get even trickier when you throw in NUMA or ccNUMA found in the AMD64 architecture. /me shrugs
    • Okay, education point here (if you know, then it's cool. If not, here's something you should know).

      The -STABLE branch is NOT STABLE! In the FreeBSD development cycle, the most stable systems run -RELEASE. Major development is done on -CURRENT. Working ideas are then moved into -STABLE (to stablize) -- a -STABLE system is a development system and is not guaranteed to boot. When the -STABLE branch proves itself to be very stable and contains enough new functionality, a -RELEASE snapshot is made. -STABLE shou
      • This is just plain wrong.

        -RELEASE is a snapshot of the -STABLE tree at the time of a particular release. -RELEASE is not updated or otherwise kept current. -RELEASE is what you would install when a new version comes out (As boot floppies are only available for -RELEASE). The only reason for releases is to serve as markers within the -STABLE cycle. It allows people to talk about a particular set of features and code.

        -STABLE is the stable branch of FreeBSD. It is a moving target and is constantly being upda

        • Re:I hope you know what -STABLE means (Score:5, Informative)

          by Echo|Fox ( 156022 ) <forumsNO@SPAMdiscordia.ca> on Saturday September 20, 2003 @12:25PM (#7012512)
          Errr, no.

          The -RELEASE branches _are_ kept secured as a security branch for all currently maintained -RELEASE branches.

          Any time a vulnerability is found, the patches go into -STABLE, but are also added to all of the supported -RELEASE trees, which would then show as a patchlevel in the version. If you cvsup a 4.8-RELEASE box to RELENG_4_8 right now, you'd end up with 4.8-RELEASE-p7, which would include patches for all of the security vulnerabilities up till now (including the latest OpenSSH and Sendmail vulnerabilities).

          Personally, I find tracking the security branches of -RELEASEs to be safer and more convenient, since I always know what is running on a given server. Since new features _are_ backported from -CURRENT to -STABLE, I could end up with two 4-STABLE machines running different versions of software. The only time I'll run -STABLE on a production server is when there is a bug in a -RELEASE, or there is a new feature in -STABLE I really need. And frankly, that hasn't happened since the early 3.x days.
        • As others have pointed out this is partially correct. Atleast with respect to the stability of the STABLE branch and RELEASE being a snapshot from the STABLE branch made ideally every 6 months (4 months?).

          However, RELEASE branches are kept up to date in relation to security. The only changes made to RELEASE branches are those made to provide security patches. Last time i checked the SA site all releases back to 4.6 were officially supported, and those prior to 4.6 are supported, though not officially.
      • While it's true that RELEASE branches are considered the most stable, there's little worry with keeping up with the STABLE branch. I vote for no branch renaming, just education of users.

    • Re:What instability? (Score:2, Informative)

      by tgreiner ( 107912 )
      From what I remember from the discussions on the mailing list the PAE import seems to have various instabilities even if not running PAE. This needs to be ironed out before a release. And seemingly this IS already fixed.

  • Stability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mediumgreen ( 649711 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @02:58PM (#7007319)
    I, for one, am very pleased to see the release team err on the side of caution and make sure that stability issues have been resolved before releasing 4.9. It seems that too much software is release way too early - and while not intended to be a troll - especially Linux with it's libc and kernel du'jour. I'll use Linux when I have no choice, but the stability and ease of use of FreeBSD make it my top choice for my x86 servers.

    • Re:Stability (Score:3, Funny)

      by realdpk ( 116490 )
      MySQL's slogan. "Release early, release often". I'm not kidding.
    • I felt some instability in STABLE so I switched to CURRENT. 5.2 is coming down the pipe, so I figured the "we thought we nipped this but it turns out we didn't" warning in the updating file was enough to prod me over to CURRENT.

      Maybe this is their secret way of getting more users to test out CURRENT?

  • IF BSD IS DYING.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by utlemming ( 654269 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @10:11PM (#7010044) Homepage

    Tell me...if BSD is dying, then how come FreeBSD is running the top five internet servers in speed and reliability? According to Netcraft, which you so frequently post, the top fifty servers with the longest up time are running FreeBSD. And even your beloved Netcraft is running FreeBSD. Additionally, there is an estimated 2,000,000 websites running FreeBSD, and that does not include all of the work stations. You will note that Yahoo uses FreeBSD. All though just a small gallery, the FreeBSD website has a listing of people that are running FreeBSD and have registered it on the website. So forgive me for being cynnical, but to the person that has said repeatedly that there are only 36000 FreeBSD users, go to hell. Honestly, if you are going to post bad numbers, at least get some of them right. According to the gallery of people that announced their FreeBSD use, 3831 are servers if you believe the guy that has said that there are 36000 users. Second the moron that says that there are only 36000 FreeBSD users fails to realize that Usenet postings are not a reliable way of figuring out how many people are really using FreeBSD. Heck, using that logic, I would say that, by Usenet postings, Microsoft Windows is only run on 150,000 machines. Where did you get that 93% of developers have abandoned FreeBSD? If you are going to post give us some evidence.

    The SysAdmin magizine survey did not say that FreeBSD was dead last. Rather it said that FreeBSD is 6x slower than Linux in Disk IO functions, but is not nearly as bad as Solaris or Windows (which had a 10x improvment). The SysAdmin maginzine title was "Which OS is Fastest for High-Performance Network Applications?" and Linux won. It did not state that FreeBSD is falling in disarray -- that was a flawed conclusion reached by the annoymous coward. The article says that FreeBSD is not well suited for High-Performance Network Applications. Go to HELL bastard.

    Additionally -- how come all you trolls out there have to hide behind annoymous coward? Everytime there is some BSD news, you guys come out of the wood work, make some smart-allick remark and post the same trash. Look, FreeBSD is just as good as Linux and vice versa. FreeBSD has some strong points, and so does Linux. Just because you belong the cult of the Penguin does not mean that you have the right to use the same tactics as SCO -- FUD.

    • YHBT FOAD HAND (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Dude, dont take the BSD trolls so seriously. They KNOW that BSD isnt dying.

      They prey on the common arrogance and over-protectionistic attitudes you guys have and it just FEEDS THEM TO POST MORE CRAP.

  • Number #1 Reason for continued trolling: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:18PM (#7013286)
    You guys keep feeding the trolls!

    Everytime someone posts the same copy-and-paste bit for the 2334th time, some idiot responds as if the troll poster thinks what he is pasting is true.

    Want to make them go away? Then don't reply! Pretend they don't exist. Just let moderators take care of then and you'll have much less of a troll problem on your hands.
  • I have it running on a Panasonic CF-35. The only problem that I have is that the PCMCIA support is nominal. The notebook will support CardBus, but FBSD will not, otherwise a solid OS. Just my thoughts, so disregard if necessecary.

  • Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 00_NOP ( 559413 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @02:07PM (#7019101) Homepage
    OK, Linux leads in the server world, but BSD is more stable and surely isn't any more difficult to set up and configure.

    What is the reason? All the effort that goes into security and stability in BSD doesn't seem to be getting it very far (in the sense it's mind share is probably falling if one ignores OS X), which is particularly odd when the core concept of the system - Unix - is through, OS X and Linux, reaching bigger and bigger audiences all the time - not bad for an OS that was pronounced dead when Win NT was launched more than a decade ago.

    Is it just the larger enthusiast base for Linux? Or what?

    I am a linux person, and when I switched from the beast's offerings I chose Linux because that was all I knew about and though I'd heard of BSD it was the BSD/OS... so is it just hype? Or is there something missing with the free BSDs?
    • You might like to research the very first phrase of your post before you try to draw any conclusions from it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Close