Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Announcements Operating Systems Software BSD

FreeBSD 7.2 Released 204

An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE. This is the third release from the 7-STABLE branch which improves on the functionality of FreeBSD 7.1 and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights: Support for fully transparent use of superpages for application memory; Support for multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for jails; csup(1) now supports CVSMode to fetch a complete CVS repository; Gnome updated to 2.26, KDE updated to 4.2.2; Sparc64 now supports UltraSparc-III processors. For a complete list of new features and known problems, please see the online release notes and errata list." Adds another anonymous reader, "You can grab the latest version from FreeBSD from the mirrors or via BitTorrent. There is also a quick review of the new features and upgrade instructions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 7.2 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by OeLeWaPpErKe ( 412765 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @05:04AM (#27813463) Homepage

    Cheers !

    • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:48AM (#27813843) Journal
      Is ZFS production-ready now? With 7.1 it was 'more or less stable' if you increased the amount of kernel memory. This increase has now been made by default on x86-64, but not on i386. The release notes don't say anything about whether the remaining bugs have been fixed, nor about whether it works with 32-bit platforms without tuning.
      • by Koutarou ( 38114 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @07:16AM (#27813967)

        The ZFS in 7.2 is v6, and pretty much can't be brought up to date without breaking 7.x ABI.

        ZFS v13 is in 8-CURRENT and pretty much is as production-ready as what's in opensolaris.

        Don't expect miracles on a 32-bit platform. The opensolaris people don't recommend it on their 32-bit codebase either.

        • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @07:35AM (#27814043) Journal

          The problem with ZFS on OpenSolaris i386 is that ZFS is very heavy on 64-bit arithmetic. The only way of doing this on x86 is to store the 64-bit value across two registers, meaning that each calculation uses 4 registers in total, dramatically increasing register churn. This makes performance suck.

          The problem on FreeBSD is that the adaptive replacement cache runs out of memory and the kernel panics. This is a much, much more serious problem. I'll take slow-but-working over crashes-and-loses-data any day.

          Still, I'm looking forward to 8 RELEASE if it includes ZFS v13 and the improvements to the sound subsystem (per-vchan volume, faster mixing, and so on).

          • Production ready really depends upon what you're planning to do with it. It's definitely not ready for environments where the server needs to be up for long periods of time or probably dealing with large numbers of clients. But it does seem to be largely ready for smaller environments where you can turn off the computer at the end of the day and are only supporting a couple of computers.

            I'm not aware with any data problems and I've been personally using it as a place to store my backups due to the self heal

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Read the Release Notes, the ZFS memory problem was fixed on FreeBSD 7.2 (for amd64).

            • Read the post you are replying to (or the post you are moderating, mods). I was talking specifically about i386.
      • by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @11:50AM (#27816509) Homepage

        In 7,2, you still get the "ZFS is cosidered to be experimental" message when you boot. As mentioned, elsewhere, the 7.x branch retains the ZFS v6 code, and v13 will be in 8.0.

        That said, I've put ZFS through its paces on the amd64 platform, and it works great (at least w/ the 2- and 4-GB RAM configurations I've had on my workstation). I don't think I've ever had a ZFS-caused panic on amd64. However, I couldn't find a stable config under i386 to save my life, but I don't really feel that's a problem because ZFS is truly a 64-bit subsystem and should be treated as such. If you're competent to administer large data sets to begin with, you'll be competent enough to take care of any tweaking ZFS may need (which is minimal under amd64, if needed at all).

  • by Xanavi ( 1197431 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @05:07AM (#27813479) Homepage
    I really feel for the BSD guys. Just hope they can keep users. Having choice in OS selection is great.
  • just my two cents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @07:10AM (#27813939) Homepage
    and not trolling, ive had great luck with BSD subversion servers and mailservers... but ive been transitioning away from BSD in our corporate environment because of a nasty 16 group limit in the kernel, the quirkyness of ports, and mostly its inability to be deployed and managed site-wide easily (ex: redhat has cobbler, koan, satellite, and kickstart but where is BSD in all of this?)

    still waiting for autofs support as well, as converting from my autofs to amd on local machines is a pain.

    if i have 3500 servers i need to deploy, pxe is still not supported without a kernel hack. makes for long nites.
    • still waiting for autofs support as well, as converting from my autofs to amd on local machines is a pain.

      Pretty hilarious — I switched to amd back in the SunOS 4.1.3 days because sun's automounter was complete poop. Here you are trying to avoid using amd. Why not just bite that bullet? How hard could it be to write a script to convert one config to the other?

  • by javacowboy ( 222023 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @08:54AM (#27814559)

    First of all, I'm not trolling.

    Most successful open source projects have some kind of corporate backing, whether it be developers, funding or both. Linux has IBM, HP, RedHat, etc. Sun sponsors and manages a number of open source projects.

    The community behind FreeBSD have put together what seems to be (I've never used it for more than a few minutes at a time) a solid server operating system whose command-line code forms part of the basis of what is IMO the best consumer operating system (OS X). From what I understand, this is due to a small but devoted group of developers.

    Still, not to bemoan the FreeBSD community's efforts, but I'm wondering if there's some kind of corporate backing, seeing as I'm certain several companies use it in critical production situations.

    There was nothing about this in the Wikipedia entry.

    • []

      I'll direct you to about 15:45 of the video. There are still a few very small companies using BSD.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Eil ( 82413 )

      Still, not to bemoan the FreeBSD community's efforts, but I'm wondering if there's some kind of corporate backing, seeing as I'm certain several companies use it in critical production situations.

      FreeBSD is supported by (but not run by, as far as I can tell) the FreeBSD Foundation [], a non-profit. Previous sponsors of the foundation include some big names like Google, NetApp, and Juniper []. Apple is missing from the list, but I know that they have donated some significant chunks of code.

  • . . . is a bit like driving an automobile with a manual stick transmission, while also being a bit like driving one with an automatic, and yet not exactly like the modern compromise, "manu-matic".

    (Manu-matic is supposed to give the driver a sense of the control of the stick, while simultaneously incorporating the no-brainer-ness of an automatic.)

    The ports system is an undeniably good idea, but only really shines if it is supported by a full-time, high-speed connection.

    Running FreeBSD from a set of CD's, on

  • Cue variations of "linux is better", "who uses FreeBSD anyway?", "GPL FTW!", and "the installer makes me frowny face" from linux fanboys that are in no way adversely affected by the advances of other projects in 3... 2... 1...
    • by swb ( 14022 )

      I love FreeBSD and have been a dedicated user since the 90s, but sysinstall does blow chunks.

      It "works" for installation, but has a weird menu system that doesn't navigate well if you try to use it any other time other than installation.

    • by u38cg ( 607297 )
      I'm not trolling, but you forgot to add that every other post will start with the words "I'm not trolling, but..."
  • Once there was a live CD called Freesbie. But I don't think it's being updated anymore. I wish there was a live CD to evaluate before committing it to the hard drive. Is anyone maintaining a live CD for any of the BSD's?

  • What I don't understand about *BSD is why it isn't getting the kind of uptake in embedded systems that Linux is. It's technically as good, and comes with a lot less licensing risk. There is a lot less variation in interpretation of the BSD license than there is of GPL.

    You don't run the risk of obeying, but still getting massively bitched at for not obeying the "spirit" of the license (think Tivo).

    You don't have to worry with BSD about exactly how the code you wrote interfaces to the BSD code--no metaphy

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.